"Androcles" wrote


You wrote (and I quote) is:
"When mass is defined as the "m" in p = mv it follows that m is a
function of speed (when the object is a normal object, i.e. it has a
finite rest mass)."
I'm trying to put that in equation form.

It was already in equation form. Do not try to define momentum before
you've calculated the mass.

If y is a function of x I write y(x) = something.
m(v) = something.

Okay.

The only variables I have at my disposal are m, v and p.

Why are you introducing p before you've calculated m? Read/follow the
derivation to the point where I show that

m = m(v) = m_o/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2] = gamma*m_o

After you have that then you're in a position to define p, i.e.

p = gamma*m_o*v

p = mv, be definition of p.
Hence m(v) = p/v = mv/v = m.
Hence if m is a function of v, it is a constant function. To me, that would
indicate that m is independent of v.

You've gotten it wrong. I simply ommitted the functional notation. You
did as well since you've written p and not p(v). But if you like it I
can put it back in. Define m(v) such that m(v)v is a conserved
quantity. It then follows that

m(v) = = m_o/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2] = gamma*m_o

Define p(v) = m(v)v

Now according to your steps above

m(v) = p(v)/v = [m(v)v]/v = m(v)

But that doesn't tell you anything. You're back where you started.

Did you walk through the calculations in the page I gave you? If not
then take a look. Let me know if you find an error. That's a page I
wrote and have not had proof read by anyone. If you find an error then
please let me know.

*You* are defining an unknown,

Nope.

terms of an unknown, i.e. "p." That is not the way *I* defined "m." As
I explained, "m" is defined such that mv is conserved. Once the
expression for "m" then *define* p as p = mv.
So give an expression for m, because what you wrote doesn't do that.

Sure it does. Once again - follow the calculations in that page and
tell me what you claim is invalid. Give me an equation number.

There
nearest I found was vague reference to the rest mass for a normal object.

Its assumed you know what rest mass is. I.e. its assumed that you know
that for v c p ~ m_o*v. The section is on relativity and not
classical mechanics.

Do you want to discuss classical mechanics or relativistic mechanics?


Pmb

In message , F. Kuik
writes

"Androcles" schreef in bericht
news

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

No reason, if you have enough energy you can.

For 'enough' read 'infinite'.

Prove it.

How much do you think is needed then?

Martin Hogbin
.
E = 1/2mv^2, v = c = 1, m = 1, so in the units I've chosen, 0.5.
You can convert to SI units if you wish.
Androcles


E=1/2mv^2 is NON-relativistic. Relativistic it would be E=gamma*m*c^2. Gamma
would be
1/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) 1.

You really dont understand physics my friend

Well said. ;-)

--
Huhhuhuhu!
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

In message , Rudolf Drabek
writes
skip

E=1/2mv^2 is NON-relativistic. Relativistic it would be E=gamma*m*c^2.
Gamma
would be
1/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) 1.

You really dont understand physics my friend

Floris
Oh, but do. I understand quite a lot of hogwash too.
When you have proof that "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body" then you'll be able to claim to know physics and I don't.
Until you have that proof, I'm afraid it is you that really doesn't
understand physics, or mathematics either. You bandy your gamma around as
though it is of consequence. It isn't. It was derived from an equation of
Einstein's,
1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)),
and the 1/2 was pulled out of nowhere, purely assumption. If you can
prove
that 1/2 was other that I state, then you'll be on your way to showing me
your gamma.
Relativity isn't physics, relativity is hogwash.
Oh, and by the way, light is source dependent in interstellar space.
Recurrent novae aren't stars that blow up, settle down to normal, then
blow
up again.
What they actually do is go around in long period orbits, shining light in
all directions as stars do, and the light that comes to us arrives with
their motion added. This means that for some stars nearly all the light
from
a complete orbit can arrive here at once, giving the appearance of a very
bright star for a short while. This causes astronomers to get excited for
a
short while, then, when the star settles back to being dim and ordinary
once
more, forget all about it. of course, you can believe they blow up
repeatedly if you want to and call it physics that I don't really
understand, but I understand it all too well. You might as well tell
Kepler
he doesn't really understand the Ptolemaic epicyclic movement of the
planets
while you are about it.
And another btw: the energy required to accelerate something to c is very
small indeed. Photons do it all the time. :-P
See
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
for more information.
Androcles
There are some articles and measurements to proofe that light is always
coming in with c and also that timedilation does exist (movement of
doublestars and mesonlifetime and M&M)
It's a question of accepting experimental data.

Androcles will never accept relativity. Oh dear.... for the rest of his
life too.... oh no.

Or you give a better explanation than state of the art physiscs.

If Androcles can't explain Relativity then I don't hold out much hope of
him explaining anything new and maybe better.
--
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

Does the creator have a penis? if so, what
for? If not, how do you ascribe maleness to it?

Androcles


Simple. I don't. But everyone seems to be varying the pronouns these days
and I find it distracting, not to say old hat. Of course, I could trot out
the old joke that the creator was a woman . . . until She changed Her mind.
But I'm far too politically correct . . . not!

Jon

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:11:20 +0100, "Rudolf Drabek"
wrote:


"Androcles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2003 23:01:50 -0800, (Jean) wrote:

My Query is quite simple........


Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the velocity of
light????????

Just increase the velocity by some m/s for some time to reach the C
....!

'Velocity' on its own does not exist.

'Velocity can only be defined wrt another object.

If relative velocity is measured using light, it is pretty obvious that
problems will arise near and beyond light speed. This has caused great
confusion in the physics ranks.

If relative velocity is measured using an infinite grid of synched
clocks,
(simulating instantaneous communication) these problems disappear.

Thus it should be quite possible to travel to a planet 10 LY away in '5
minutes' if suitable rocket engines are available and your body can
stand
the
g's.

What is more, when you return, you will be only 10 minutes older.

However an observer on Earth will still be monitoring your spaceship's
journey
for twenty years after you have returned.

Relativity is BULL!!!

For the outward trip, monitoring would fail when c was achieved relative
to
the monitoring station, doppler shift would fall to zero. At any speed
beyond that, the light would never reach the monitoring station. As the
ship
decelerated to less that c to turn around, the signal would resume. On the
return trip, the frequency at c will double. The ship will be able to read
its own signals that it outrun in the first part of the journey. Note that
this in no different to firing bullets backwards as you accelerate. When
you
return they'll still be there, you'll run right into them.
Androcles

Your last statements are not correct. You are mixing up shiptime and
earthtime.
Seen from earth the ship never exceeded c, so its not possible to run into
the own signals.
Only the moving clock has a dilated time.

When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?

Depends on the observer, eh?

So do its clocks PHYSICALLY speed up or slow down ?

Answer: Neither. They obviously cannot change in any way.

Relativity is blatant BULL!!!!


Rudi



Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:01:45 GMT, Bill Rowe
wrote:

In article ,
(HenriWilson) wrote:

'Velocity' on its own does not exist.

'Velocity can only be defined wrt another object.

True.

If relative velocity is measured using light, it is pretty obvious that
problems will arise near and beyond light speed. This has caused great
confusion in the physics ranks.

Not true. It seems to cause great confusion only among those who do not
understand physics or don't take the time to understand.

If relative velocity is measured using an infinite grid of synched clocks,
(simulating instantaneous communication) these problems disappear.

But such a grid doesn't exist. Nor is is possible even as a
hypothetical, to construct such a grid. The problem hinges on precisely
how the clocks are synched.

I have provided a way to absolutely synch remote clocks and set up such a grid.
If you don't believe me, see my demo www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingrod.exe.


remainder snipped


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

In message , HenriWilson
writes
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:11:20 +0100, "Rudolf Drabek"
wrote:


"Androcles" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On 22 Nov 2003 23:01:50 -0800, (Jean) wrote:

My Query is quite simple........


Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the velocity of
light????????

Just increase the velocity by some m/s for some time to reach the C
....!

'Velocity' on its own does not exist.

'Velocity can only be defined wrt another object.

If relative velocity is measured using light, it is pretty obvious that
problems will arise near and beyond light speed. This has caused great
confusion in the physics ranks.

If relative velocity is measured using an infinite grid of synched
clocks,
(simulating instantaneous communication) these problems disappear.

Thus it should be quite possible to travel to a planet 10 LY away in '5
minutes' if suitable rocket engines are available and your body can
stand
the
g's.

What is more, when you return, you will be only 10 minutes older.

However an observer on Earth will still be monitoring your spaceship's
journey
for twenty years after you have returned.

Relativity is BULL!!!

For the outward trip, monitoring would fail when c was achieved relative
to
the monitoring station, doppler shift would fall to zero. At any speed
beyond that, the light would never reach the monitoring station. As the
ship
decelerated to less that c to turn around, the signal would resume. On the
return trip, the frequency at c will double. The ship will be able to read
its own signals that it outrun in the first part of the journey. Note that
this in no different to firing bullets backwards as you accelerate. When
you
return they'll still be there, you'll run right into them.
Androcles

Your last statements are not correct. You are mixing up shiptime and
earthtime.
Seen from earth the ship never exceeded c, so its not possible to run into
the own signals.
Only the moving clock has a dilated time.

When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?

Depends on the observer, eh?

So do its clocks PHYSICALLY speed up or slow down ?

Answer: Neither. They obviously cannot change in any way.

Relativity is blatant BULL!!!!

Huhuhuhuhhaaah!

You have changed the question.

Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

--
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:54:57 +0000, Nine Stones
wrote:

In message , HenriWilson
writes
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:11:20 +0100, "Rudolf Drabek"


Your last statements are not correct. You are mixing up shiptime and
earthtime.
Seen from earth the ship never exceeded c, so its not possible to run into
the own signals.
Only the moving clock has a dilated time.

When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?

Depends on the observer, eh?

So do its clocks PHYSICALLY speed up or slow down ?

Answer: Neither. They obviously cannot change in any way.

Relativity is blatant BULL!!!!

Huhuhuhuhhaaah!


Where's the joke?

You have changed the question.

No I haven't


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Gauge" wrote in message
om...
"Androcles" wrote

[snip as read]
m = m(v) = m_o/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2] = gamma*m_o
Ok, fine. You didn't say that before. So where is this gamma from? You have
to prove that too.
[snip as read]

Its assumed you know what rest mass is.

I don't have a clue, actually. I don't think anyone has, other than saying
it is an amount of matter, and I don't know what that is either.
I've never heard of or read any adequate definition of mass, it is one of
those things we rely on intuition for. We can hold up a rock, a lead fishing
weight or a feather and say these are examples of matter, and mass is a
quantity of them.
However, I'll go along with it and say yes, I know what the concept of mass
is, resting or otherwise.


I.e. its assumed that you know
that for v c p ~ m_o*v. The section is on relativity and not
classical mechanics.
I don't know that at all. I've heard of it, but that's for you to prove.


Do you want to discuss classical mechanics or relativistic mechanics?

I'm asking the questions, you are giving the answers.

The original question was "Why can't a body simply accelerate and exceed the
velocity of light????????"
There are several possible answers to that. One might be "it is
impractical", another might be "there is no good reason why it cannot", and
you've chosen to say the equivalent of "it is theoretically impossible".

You gave an answer that I disagreed with and I challenged it. That leaves
the burden of proof with you. So far it's taken a couple of days to get to
something you call m_o and gamma. I'll accept m_o as a given, so now prove
'gamma'.
Obviously if you are going to conserve momentum, and the total momentum of
the system to start with was zero, then there must be some other p going the
other way. This might be a huge mass moving slowly, perhaps the Earth
itself, or a lot of very small masses moving quickly, as in a chemical
rocket exhaust; or even a stream of light, in which case there is no mass at
all, and that brings us back to the notion of what mass is, but if I've got
a nuclear furnace in the tail of my rocket shooting nothing but photons out
the arse end, very slowly losing mass, why can't I exceed the speed of
light, relative to my starting place, if I accelerate for long enough?
You seem to be saying that I gain mass as I near lightspeed. That's great!
I'll stoke up the reaction boilers and go faster. Free energy! E = mc^2, now
I have a lot more mass, so I have a lot more energy, and can use the surplus
for any purpose I choose. The m in that equation is of course your m,
defined as m_o*gamma. I get that energy long before I reach light speed, so
I can add even more acceleration as I go along.
So now prove your gamma, because as always when discussing relativity,
mechanics or otherwise, we've hit a paradox. Something isn't right. Let's
find what it is.
Androcles

I just happened to see this.

On 11/24/2003 4:38 PM, HenriWilson wrote:
When a remote spaceship fires its engines, does it go faster or slower?
Depends on the observer, eh?
So do its clocks PHYSICALLY speed up or slow down ?
Answer: Neither. They obviously cannot change in any way.
Relativity is blatant BULL!!!!

No. HenriWilson's MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT RELATIVITY are blatant BULL!!!!

If any readers of this thread are actually interested in learning
physics, be warned that it is very difficult to learn anything by
reading this newsgroup. You must study a good physics textbook to do
that. Feynman's 3-volume set is an EXCELLENT place to start.


Tom Roberts