Does Newton's law f = (ma) hold true in all cases?

The one time where f = (ma) does not appear to hold true is, when a
relativistic particle continues to absorb kinetic energy in a particle
accelerator without a corresponding increase in its linear velocity.
This is what caused Einstein to propose his "Theory of Special Relativity",
which proclaims that at relativistic speeds the particle magically increases
its (relativistic) mass.

In reality, a relativistic particle can continue to absorb kinetic energy in
two ways, other than by increasing its linear velocity.
Firstly, it can increase its peripheral speed
Secondly, it can increase its spin frequency.

It should be noted that even though relativistic physics accepts the fact
that a relativistic particle spins around its own axis as it travels along,
it never mentions how the particle acquires this form of kinetic energy, nor
that it accounts for part of its total kinetic energy. This in spite of the
fact that at close to the speed of light, the lion share of the particle's
kinetic energy consists of its spin frequency (the revolutions per second at
which it rotates around its own axis as it travels along).

Moreover, since a particle that travels at close to the speed of light
begins to follow a helical path (it becomes a helical wave particle), the
peripheral speed of the particle also constitutes part of its overall
kinetic energy.

The peripheral speed of the particle is caused by the gyroscopic force,
which is a function of the frequency at which the spin axis of the particle
gyrates times its spin frequency, as it progresses through space at a
velocity which approaches the speed of light.

Consequently the kinetic energy of a relativistic helical wave particle is
equal to:
k = (m/2)(v^2) + (u^2)/2 (m)(A^2)(F^2) + (4u^2)/5 (m)(r^2)(f^2)

Whe
k = the total kinetic energy of the relativistic helical wave (h.w.)
particle
m = mass of the h.w. particle
v = the linear velocity of the h.w. particle
A = the h.w amplitude of the particle
F = the h.w. frequency of the particle
r = the radius of the h.w. particle
f = the spin frequency of the h.w. particle and
u = pie (3.14.......)

In other words, a relativistic particle can continue to absorb kinetic
energy in several ways, without having to resort to increasing its
"relativistic mass".

It follows from the above that Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" is
wrong since it doesn't take into account the kinetic energy produced by the
peripheral speed and spin frequency of the relativistic particle.

In other words Newton was right in saying that the force required to
accelerate a given mass is proportional to the rate at which that mass is
being accelerated, i.e. (f = ma).

Einstein's mistake was that he didn't realize that one can accelerate a
particle in several ways. Whereas he assumed that the only way a moving
particle could gain kinetic energy was by increasing its linear velocity, in
reality it can gain kinetic energy by increasing its peripheral speed and
its spin frequency IN ADDITION TO its linear velocity.

Next Einstein went on to proclaim his "General Theory of Relativity" in
which he confuses ACTUAL reality with OBSERVED reality. This in spite of
the known fact that it takes time for the observed image to reach the
observer, even if it travels at the speed of light.

For further details see the first of my "Selected Papers" titled:
"Helical Particle Waves" at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Enjoy, Len.

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...
: Does Newton's law f = (ma) hold true in all cases?

Yes.
Androcles

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...
: Does Newton's law f = (ma) hold true in all cases?

No.
Sitting at my desk I still experience a force, but I am not
accelerating.
My fridge magnets are not falling through the steel either.
Androcles

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...
: Does Newton's law f = (ma) hold true in all cases?

No.
Sitting at my desk I still experience a force, but I am not
accelerating.
My fridge magnets are not falling through the steel either.
Androcles

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

Does Newton's law f = (ma) hold true in all cases?

The one time where f = (ma) does not appear to hold true is, when a
relativistic particle continues to absorb kinetic energy in a particle
accelerator without a corresponding increase in its linear velocity.
This is what caused Einstein to propose his "Theory of Special Relativity",
which proclaims that at relativistic speeds the particle magically increases
its (relativistic) mass.
snip
Enjoy, Len.

When dealing with relativity theory, F=MA is rewritten F=dP/dT, change
in momentum/change in time. This revised form holds true.

Your proposed means of absorbing kinetic energy would not conserve momentum.

"penguinista" wrote in message ...
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

Does Newton's law f = (ma) hold true in all cases?

The one time where f = (ma) does not appear to hold true is, when a
relativistic particle continues to absorb kinetic energy in a particle
accelerator without a corresponding increase in its linear velocity.
This is what caused Einstein to propose his "Theory of Special Relativity",
which proclaims that at relativistic speeds the particle magically increases
its (relativistic) mass.
snip
Enjoy, Len.

When dealing with relativity theory, F=MA is rewritten F=dP/dT, change
in momentum/change in time. This revised form holds true.

See also
elenet-ops.be

Dirk Vdm


Your proposed means of absorbing kinetic energy would not conserve momentum.

Len wrote:

The one time where f = (ma) does not appear to hold true is, when a
relativistic particle continues to absorb kinetic energy in a particle
accelerator without a corresponding increase in its linear velocity.
This is what caused Einstein to propose his "Theory of Special Relativity",
which proclaims that at relativistic speeds the particle magically increases
its (relativistic) mass.

That's surprising, since the inventor of the cyclotron was only
four years old in 1905.


---Tim Shuba---

In article ,
penguinista wrote:

When dealing with relativity theory, F=MA is rewritten F=dP/dT, change
in momentum/change in time. This revised form holds true.

What do you mean, "rewritten?" ;-) Newton originally wrote his "Lex II"
in terms of what we now call momentum, after all.

--
Jon Bell Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...
Does Newton's law f = (ma) hold true in all cases?

The one time where f = (ma) does not appear to hold true is, when a
relativistic particle continues to absorb kinetic energy in a particle
accelerator without a corresponding increase in its linear velocity.
This is what caused Einstein to propose his "Theory of Special
Relativity",
which proclaims that at relativistic speeds the particle magically
increases
its (relativistic) mass.

That is not the basis of SR. Relativistic mass is a defined quantity that
for various reasons is out of favor these days.

Bill


In reality, a relativistic particle can continue to absorb kinetic energy
in
two ways, other than by increasing its linear velocity.
Firstly, it can increase its peripheral speed
Secondly, it can increase its spin frequency.

It should be noted that even though relativistic physics accepts the fact
that a relativistic particle spins around its own axis as it travels
along,
it never mentions how the particle acquires this form of kinetic energy,
nor
that it accounts for part of its total kinetic energy. This in spite of
the
fact that at close to the speed of light, the lion share of the particle's
kinetic energy consists of its spin frequency (the revolutions per second
at
which it rotates around its own axis as it travels along).

Moreover, since a particle that travels at close to the speed of light
begins to follow a helical path (it becomes a helical wave particle), the
peripheral speed of the particle also constitutes part of its overall
kinetic energy.

The peripheral speed of the particle is caused by the gyroscopic force,
which is a function of the frequency at which the spin axis of the
particle
gyrates times its spin frequency, as it progresses through space at a
velocity which approaches the speed of light.

Consequently the kinetic energy of a relativistic helical wave particle is
equal to:
k = (m/2)(v^2) + (u^2)/2 (m)(A^2)(F^2) + (4u^2)/5 (m)(r^2)(f^2)

Whe
k = the total kinetic energy of the relativistic helical wave (h.w.)
particle
m = mass of the h.w. particle
v = the linear velocity of the h.w. particle
A = the h.w amplitude of the particle
F = the h.w. frequency of the particle
r = the radius of the h.w. particle
f = the spin frequency of the h.w. particle and
u = pie (3.14.......)

In other words, a relativistic particle can continue to absorb kinetic
energy in several ways, without having to resort to increasing its
"relativistic mass".

It follows from the above that Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity"
is
wrong since it doesn't take into account the kinetic energy produced by
the
peripheral speed and spin frequency of the relativistic particle.

In other words Newton was right in saying that the force required to
accelerate a given mass is proportional to the rate at which that mass is
being accelerated, i.e. (f = ma).

Einstein's mistake was that he didn't realize that one can accelerate a
particle in several ways. Whereas he assumed that the only way a moving
particle could gain kinetic energy was by increasing its linear velocity,
in
reality it can gain kinetic energy by increasing its peripheral speed and
its spin frequency IN ADDITION TO its linear velocity.

Next Einstein went on to proclaim his "General Theory of Relativity" in
which he confuses ACTUAL reality with OBSERVED reality. This in spite of
the known fact that it takes time for the observed image to reach the
observer, even if it travels at the speed of light.

For further details see the first of my "Selected Papers" titled:
"Helical Particle Waves" at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek

Enjoy, Len.