Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V. The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration . The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.
What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?
Where is the flaw in this argument?
Amil

"Amil" wrote in message
om...
Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V. The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration . The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.
What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?
Where is the flaw in this argument?
Amil

You're assuming things which do noe happen. The acceleration of a body is a
function of speed. So too is its relativistic mass

See http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...lling_particle

Pete

"Amil" wrote in message om...
Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V. The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration . The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.

You can safely forget about the "mass increase":
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.a...y/SR/mass.html

What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?
Where is the flaw in this argument?

With a constant acceleration a the speed varies with coordinate
time like
v(t) = at / sqrt( 1 + (at/c)^2 )
and as a function of proper time like
v(T) = c tanh( aT/c )
When you take the limits of these expressions for t and T to infinity,
you get the value c.
See also
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.a...SR/rocket.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...eleration.html

Dirk Vdm

On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:58:33 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


"Amil" wrote in message om...
Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V. The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration . The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.

You can safely forget about the "mass increase":
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.a...y/SR/mass.html

What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?
Where is the flaw in this argument?

With a constant acceleration a the speed varies with coordinate
time like
v(t) = at / sqrt( 1 + (at/c)^2 )
and as a function of proper time like
v(T) = c tanh( aT/c )
When you take the limits of these expressions for t and T to infinity,
you get the value c.

More circular SRian logic.
HaHa!


See also
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.a...SR/rocket.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...eleration.html

Dirk Vdm


Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
See how three orbiting bodies interact:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/threebody.exe

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

(Amil) wrote in message . com...
Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V. The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration . The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.
What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?
Where is the flaw in this argument?
Amil

General Relativity predicts that matter would fall at light speed
in a black hole.
It is wrong. It must become a limited strength gravity theory.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

In article ,
says...
(Amil) wrote in message . com...
Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V. The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration . The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.
What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?
Where is the flaw in this argument?
Amil

General Relativity predicts that matter would fall at light speed
in a black hole.

Where does GR state this?


It is wrong. It must become a limited strength gravity theory.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --




--
Stupidity commonly comes with arrogance.

Observations of Bernard - No 63

On 3 Aug 2004 18:02:26 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:

(Amil) wrote in message . com...
Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V. The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration . The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.
What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?
Where is the flaw in this argument?
Amil

General Relativity predicts that matter would fall at light speed
in a black hole.

NO.

You stupid ignorant ****. For the ten thousandth ****ing time, THAT IS
NOT WHAT GR PREDICTS.


It is wrong. It must become a limited strength gravity theory.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

You wouldn't know a limited strength gravitation theory if it hit you
square in the nuts.

Eric Gisse wrote in message . ..
On 3 Aug 2004 18:02:26 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:

(Amil) wrote in message . com...
Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V. The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration . The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.
What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?
Where is the flaw in this argument?
Amil

General Relativity predicts that matter would fall at light speed
in a black hole.

NO.

You stupid ignorant ****. For the ten thousandth ****ing time, THAT IS
NOT WHAT GR PREDICTS.

It is wrong. It must become a limited strength gravity theory.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

You wouldn't know a limited strength gravitation theory if it hit you
square in the nuts.

Go chase your sheepskins Eric.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Time Moves --

Eric Gisse wrote in message . ..
On 3 Aug 2004 18:02:26 -0700, (Mitchell)
wrote:

(Amil) wrote in message . com...
Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V. The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration . The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.
What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?
Where is the flaw in this argument?
Amil

General Relativity predicts that matter would fall at light speed
in a black hole.

NO.

You stupid ignorant ****. For the ten thousandth ****ing time, THAT IS
NOT WHAT GR PREDICTS.

It is wrong. It must become a limited strength gravity theory.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Light Falls --

You wouldn't know a limited strength gravitation theory if it hit you
square in the nuts.

Go chase your sheepskins Eric.
Mitch Raemsch
-- Time Moves --

Amil wrote:
Imagine mass M free falls in a very deep gravity well, with constant
acceleration, in relativistic speed V.

While I suppose you could "imagine" that, it is not consistent with GR
for any remotely-realistic manifold. There are situations for which this
can be approximately valid, for a limited time; but in no case for
speeds approaching c wrt any locally-inertial frame.

In GR there are 3 meanings of the word "acceleration", and not
specifying which you mean is highly ambiguous:

The 4-acceleration of an object is the derivative of its
4-velocity with respect to its proper time. As a 4-vector, it
is independent of coordinates, and is a property of the object
itself.

The proper acceleration of an object is the projection of its
4-acceleration onto its instantaneously-comoving locally-inertial
frame. This is always spacelike (i.e. is a 3-vector), and can be
considered to be a property of the object.

The coordinate acceleration of an object is the second derivative
of its coordiante position with respect to coordinate time. This
is inherently coordinate dependent, and can in no way be
considered as a property of the object; it is a RELATIONSHIP
between the object and the coordiante system.

In Newtonian mechanics, the first two types of acceleration did not
exist, and you seem to be thinking of the coordinate acceleration of an
object. Unfortunately, in GR that is nearly useless, and is COMPLETELY
useless unless you specify the corodinates you are using (which you did
not do).


The speed increases
continuously, due to acceleration.
The relativistic mass increase as
well, but acceleration remains constant according to GR under free
fall, regardless of mass.

You have conjoined a number of misconceptions and puns in there. First,
"relativistic mass" is not very useful in SR, and is essentially useless
in GR, because it does not represent anything physical, and is
inherently coordinate dependent (in SR there are inertial frames around
to give clear choices of coordinates; not so in GR).

In GR, the most useful meaning of "acceleration" is the 4-acceleration
of an object, and for an object in freefall it is identically zero.
While I suppose that is indeed "constant", I don't think that's what you
had in mind above.... The coordinate acceleration of any object can have
any value you like by selecting appropriate coordinates....


What would prevent the mass from breaking the light speed barrier?

Nothing, if you mean COORDINATE speed -- it is easy to have coordinate
speeds that exceed c. But they don't mean very much, because of the
arbitrariness of coordiate systems. The "light speed barrier" in GR is
reflected in the fact that no timelike object can travel faster than c
relative to a LOCALLY-INERTIAL coordinate system. What prevents a
timelike object from exceeding that value is simply the local
geometrical structure of the manifold.


Tom Roberts