I have no difficulty with the concept that time and distance being related
in an inversely proportionate manners and that as a consequence c is always
measured at c or constant in any local state of time distance proportions
that are energy equivalent. But to from this to concluded that the energy in
these states can not have any relative velocity or that c is a limiting
velocity leaves me gob smacked. Perhaps somebody can explain how these
conclusions can be reached in a non assertive manner ? as I can find no hard
evidence for these beliefs just a load of misconceptions.

D & R *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two unbound
field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)

I for sure can't explain it. I am as confused as you. More-so it seems.

A drag racer goes east for a while then goes west for a while.

His displacement is zero but time has elapesd and fuel was burned.
Doing it faster just burns more fuel. The displacement is still zero.

Truely baffeling. [eyes crossed]
Sue...

"*** rD" wrote in message
...
I have no difficulty with the concept that time and distance being
related
in an inversely proportionate manners and that as a consequence c is
always
measured at c or constant in any local state of time distance proportions
that are energy equivalent. But to from this to concluded that the energy
in
these states can not have any relative velocity or that c is a limiting
velocity leaves me gob smacked. Perhaps somebody can explain how these
conclusions can be reached in a non assertive manner ? as I can find no
hard
evidence for these beliefs just a load of misconceptions.

I don't understand what you ask about energy. About limiting velocity, a
straightforward explanation is the following:
According to SRT, the relativistic mass increases with speed by the factor
gamma. As a matter of fact, that was the first prediction of SRT that was
verified to be correct (eventhough Lorentz and Einstein used another, rather
awkward definition of mass). Thus as a particle is accelerated towards c,
its momentum increases towards infinity. Obviously, it's impossible to
accelerate anything that has infinite momentum.

Cheers,
Harald

"Harry" wrote in message ...

"*** rD" wrote in message
...
I have no difficulty with the concept that time and distance being
related
in an inversely proportionate manners and that as a consequence c is
always
measured at c or constant in any local state of time distance proportions
that are energy equivalent. But to from this to concluded that the energy
in
these states can not have any relative velocity or that c is a limiting
velocity leaves me gob smacked. Perhaps somebody can explain how these
conclusions can be reached in a non assertive manner ? as I can find no
hard
evidence for these beliefs just a load of misconceptions.

I don't understand what you ask about energy. About limiting velocity, a
straightforward explanation is the following:
According to SRT, the relativistic mass increases with speed by the factor
gamma. As a matter of fact, that was the first prediction of SRT that was
verified to be correct (eventhough Lorentz and Einstein used another, rather
awkward definition of mass). Thus as a particle is accelerated towards c,
its momentum increases towards infinity. Obviously, it's impossible to
accelerate anything that has infinite momentum.

Cheers,
Harald



Towards Infinity?

Richard Feynman avoided this problem with renormalization
whereby infinity is subtracted from infinity and the correct
experimental result was substituted into the equation.


Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it turns
out to be small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great
and you do not want it!
--Paul Dirac

----
Sue...

"sue jahn" wrote in message
...

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"*** rD" wrote in message
...
I have no difficulty with the concept that time and distance being
related
in an inversely proportionate manners and that as a consequence c is
always
measured at c or constant in any local state of time distance
proportions
that are energy equivalent. But to from this to concluded that the
energy
in
these states can not have any relative velocity or that c is a
limiting
velocity leaves me gob smacked. Perhaps somebody can explain how these
conclusions can be reached in a non assertive manner ? as I can find
no
hard
evidence for these beliefs just a load of misconceptions.

I don't understand what you ask about energy. About limiting velocity, a
straightforward explanation is the following:
According to SRT, the relativistic mass increases with speed by the
factor
gamma. As a matter of fact, that was the first prediction of SRT that
was
verified to be correct (eventhough Lorentz and Einstein used another,
rather
awkward definition of mass). Thus as a particle is accelerated towards
c,
its momentum increases towards infinity. Obviously, it's impossible to
accelerate anything that has infinite momentum.

Cheers,
Harald



Towards Infinity?

Richard Feynman avoided this problem with renormalization
whereby infinity is subtracted from infinity and the correct
experimental result was substituted into the equation.

1. It's not a problem
2. No experimental result with matter moving at c - that would disprove SRT!
Probably you are confused with some other experiment.

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message ...

"sue jahn" wrote in message
...

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"*** rD" wrote in message
...
I have no difficulty with the concept that time and distance being
related
in an inversely proportionate manners and that as a consequence c is
always
measured at c or constant in any local state of time distance
proportions
that are energy equivalent. But to from this to concluded that the
energy
in
these states can not have any relative velocity or that c is a
limiting
velocity leaves me gob smacked. Perhaps somebody can explain how these
conclusions can be reached in a non assertive manner ? as I can find
no
hard
evidence for these beliefs just a load of misconceptions.

I don't understand what you ask about energy. About limiting velocity, a
straightforward explanation is the following:
According to SRT, the relativistic mass increases with speed by the
factor
gamma. As a matter of fact, that was the first prediction of SRT that
was
verified to be correct (eventhough Lorentz and Einstein used another,
rather
awkward definition of mass). Thus as a particle is accelerated towards
c,
its momentum increases towards infinity. Obviously, it's impossible to
accelerate anything that has infinite momentum.

Cheers,
Harald



Towards Infinity?

Richard Feynman avoided this problem with renormalization
whereby infinity is subtracted from infinity and the correct
experimental result was substituted into the equation.

1. It's not a problem
2. No experimental result with matter moving at c - that would disprove SRT!
Probably you are confused with some other experiment.

The calorimeter of a particle accelerator disproves the any real
world interpretation of relativstic mass.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7432.As.r.html

Sue...



Harald

Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special..._for_beginners

"Harry" wrote in message
...
|
| "*** rD" wrote in message
| ...
| I have no difficulty with the concept that time and distance being
| related
| in an inversely proportionate manners and that as a consequence c is
| always
| measured at c or constant in any local state of time distance
proportions
| that are energy equivalent. But to from this to concluded that the
energy
| in
| these states can not have any relative velocity or that c is a limiting
| velocity leaves me gob smacked. Perhaps somebody can explain how these
| conclusions can be reached in a non assertive manner ? as I can find no
| hard
| evidence for these beliefs just a load of misconceptions.
|
| I don't understand what you ask about energy.

I didn't I was just confirming the mechanism by which the energy of
radiation was conserved in a variable time\ distance continuum that allowed
relative motion.
..
| About limiting velocity, a
| straightforward explanation is the following:
| According to SRT, the relativistic mass increases with speed by the factor
| gamma. As a matter of fact, that was the first prediction of SRT that was
| verified to be correct (eventhough Lorentz and Einstein used another,
rather
| awkward definition of mass). Thus as a particle is accelerated towards c,
| its momentum increases towards infinity.

But that only holds relative to a zero base condition which appears to have
been discarded.

| Obviously, it's impossible to
| accelerate anything that has infinite momentum.

Relative to a zero base condition but if the base condition moves as it must
to allow motion at all, the limiting parameters move with it. If this not
understood then any experiments that seem to prove anything are working
under a false premise and are potentially false.

|
| Cheers,
| Harald
|
Thanks.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| I for sure can't explain it. I am as confused as you. More-so it seems.
|
| A drag racer goes east for a while then goes west for a while.
|
| His displacement is zero but time has elapesd and fuel was burned.
| Doing it faster just burns more fuel. The displacement is still zero.

No their displacement is not zero accept at the point in time that you
define as zero. From the initial zero to the final zero was a period and
during that period two energy displacement events occurred and energy was
conserved in the relationship between the drag racer and the earth via the
track.

|
| Truely baffeling. [eyes crossed]
| Sue...
|
Thanks Sexy {:-)

"*** rD" wrote in message ...

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| I for sure can't explain it. I am as confused as you. More-so it seems.
|
| A drag racer goes east for a while then goes west for a while.
|
| His displacement is zero but time has elapesd and fuel was burned.
| Doing it faster just burns more fuel. The displacement is still zero.

No their displacement is not zero accept at the point in time that you
define as zero. From the initial zero to the final zero was a period and
during that period two energy displacement events occurred and energy was
conserved in the relationship between the drag racer and the earth via the
track.

|
| Truely baffeling. [eyes crossed]
| Sue...
|
Thanks Sexy {:-)




the point in time that you define as zero.

Huh ? Points in time?
I don't know what you mean by this.

Micky has gloves on both his hands so I see nothing
pointy about time. I know you are not speaking of a
vector because we can add 180 degrees to those and make
them reverse. Even turning Mickey's gloves inside out
will not make his hands go backward.

How would I describe one of these "points in time"
if I wanted to sell it on e-Bay ? I have sold a few
broken meter sticks so it would not be too much
different ...Eh ?

;-)
Sue...