Sam Wormley wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

So, any mass under acceleration gains mass, because F = ma and c is the
speed of light?

Then, if you have a ring cyclotron on a barge, and you can recover the
energy from accelerating particles by slowing them with 100%
efficiency, can't that cause oscillations on the lake, yet the ring
cyclotron would be at equilibrium?


Ross--Are you confusing velocity with acceleration?

Velocity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html

Relativistic Mass
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...isticMass.html

Acceleration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...eleration.html

I'm not sure. Can you explain? Do you see some obvious misuse of the
terminology, and if so, how so?

The idea is to accelerate a component of a system and as you have just
tried to push it to the speed of light it gains mass. Otherwise the
object under constant acceleration would have a linear increase in
velocity. Classical mechanics says it does, relativistic mechanics
says it doesn't, have a linear increase in velocity over "linear",
constant-rate time. (A problem with that is that constant-rate is
defined in terms of time.)

Then the object is declerated, negative constant acceleration, with a
rapid and not instantaneous switchover. With 100% efficiency, as much
energy as was used to accelerate the particle is recovered, kinetic
energy back to potential energy.

So, the system always contains the same amount of energy, but it seems
that the relativistic mass or dilated rest mass fluctuates even as the
particle swings back and forth or goes in a circle. Does the system
have time effects on what seem dimensionless quantities in the
gravitational field equations? (Shrug, blank stare.)

Then, with that system being in the gravitational field of a much
larger object, eg Earth, does both its weight and mass appear to
fluctuate?

Ross

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:


So, any mass under acceleration gains mass, because F = ma and c is the
speed of light?

Then, if you have a ring cyclotron on a barge, and you can recover the
energy from accelerating particles by slowing them with 100%
efficiency, can't that cause oscillations on the lake, yet the ring
cyclotron would be at equilibrium?


Ross--Are you confusing velocity with acceleration?

Velocity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html

Relativistic Mass
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...isticMass.html

Acceleration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...eleration.html


I'm not sure. Can you explain? Do you see some obvious misuse of the
terminology, and if so, how so?

The idea is to accelerate a component of a system and as you have just
tried to push it to the speed of light it gains mass.

Relativistic Mass depends on rest mass and [relative] velocity. Look
at the equations
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...isticMass.html


Otherwise the
object under constant acceleration would have a linear increase in
velocity.

The earth is under constant acceleration.


Classical mechanics says it does, relativistic mechanics
says it doesn't, have a linear increase in velocity over "linear",
constant-rate time. (A problem with that is that constant-rate is
defined in terms of time.)

Then the object is declerated, negative constant acceleration, with a
rapid and not instantaneous switchover. With 100% efficiency, as much
energy as was used to accelerate the particle is recovered, kinetic
energy back to potential energy.

So, the system always contains the same amount of energy, but it seems
that the relativistic mass or dilated rest mass fluctuates even as the
particle swings back and forth or goes in a circle. Does the system
have time effects on what seem dimensionless quantities in the
gravitational field equations? (Shrug, blank stare.)

Then, with that system being in the gravitational field of a much
larger object, eg Earth, does both its weight and mass appear to
fluctuate?

Ross


To first order, the mass of the Earth is a constant.

Sam Wormley wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:


So, any mass under acceleration gains mass, because F = ma and c is the
speed of light?

Then, if you have a ring cyclotron on a barge, and you can recover the
energy from accelerating particles by slowing them with 100%
efficiency, can't that cause oscillations on the lake, yet the ring
cyclotron would be at equilibrium?


Ross--Are you confusing velocity with acceleration?

Velocity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html

Relativistic Mass
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...isticMass.html

Acceleration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...eleration.html


I'm not sure. Can you explain? Do you see some obvious misuse of the
terminology, and if so, how so?

The idea is to accelerate a component of a system and as you have just
tried to push it to the speed of light it gains mass.

Relativistic Mass depends on rest mass and [relative] velocity. Look
at the equations
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...isticMass.html


Otherwise the
object under constant acceleration would have a linear increase in
velocity.

The earth is under constant acceleration.


Classical mechanics says it does, relativistic mechanics
says it doesn't, have a linear increase in velocity over "linear",
constant-rate time. (A problem with that is that constant-rate is
defined in terms of time.)

Then the object is declerated, negative constant acceleration, with a
rapid and not instantaneous switchover. With 100% efficiency, as much
energy as was used to accelerate the particle is recovered, kinetic
energy back to potential energy.

So, the system always contains the same amount of energy, but it seems
that the relativistic mass or dilated rest mass fluctuates even as the
particle swings back and forth or goes in a circle. Does the system
have time effects on what seem dimensionless quantities in the
gravitational field equations? (Shrug, blank stare.)

Then, with that system being in the gravitational field of a much
larger object, eg Earth, does both its weight and mass appear to
fluctuate?

Ross


To first order, the mass of the Earth is a constant.

OK. The constant acceleration on the Earth is towards the Sun. Over
the course of the year that averages to around zero in the plane of its
orbit.

Say on the barge is a linear accelerator instead. So it accelerates a
particle and slows it towards the other side. The sum force on the
barge from positively and negatively accelerating is zero, but at the
maximum velocity of the particle it had its highest relativistic mass.


Yes, no?

Perhaps you might conclude that the energy in potential form leads to
its own mass increases, eg, compressed springs massier than
uncompressed ones or hot batteries massier than cooler ones, but the
gravity doesn't know about relativistic velocity. To the Earth, the
system just gains mass, and loses it, without input or extraction of
energy.

That seems strange.

Zombie: the Caribbean undead of Voodoo, generally caused by inducing a
coma-like state and reviving under ceremonial spirits and drugs. Two
hit dice, Monster Manual new cover, second on the hierarchy of the
undead after skeletons turnable by clerics and high-level paladins,
liches, eg S1, are the top like your RingWraiths, song by a band from
Ireland.

"Yeah, I remember her saying: I'm already dead." Track seven.

Cool, rapid process and slow process.

There sure are a lot of dimensionless quantities in these
electromagnetic fields.

Ross

In article .com,
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler
law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in
empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that
this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c=300000
km/s."

Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
VARIES WITH POSITION."

The rational world would ask: How does the velocity of propagation of
light VARY WITH POSITION? Increases and becomes greater than c=300000
km/s? Decreases? Increase and decrease depend on what?

The zombie world asks nothing. It learns by rote, celebrates, worships,
sings dithyrambs, eats and teaches how to learn by rote, celebrate,
worship, sing dithyrambs and eat.

I almost thought you were asking a question because you wanted to learn
something.

Either you're a lot smarter and understand the theory better than all
those physicists around the world who spent years with pencil and paper at
hand working through these kinds of problems or...

No, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate! It can only be that
everyone in the world is stupid except for you.


--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


Ross A. Finlayson wrote:



So, any mass under acceleration gains mass, because F = ma and c is the
speed of light?

Then, if you have a ring cyclotron on a barge, and you can recover the
energy from accelerating particles by slowing them with 100%
efficiency, can't that cause oscillations on the lake, yet the ring
cyclotron would be at equilibrium?


Ross--Are you confusing velocity with acceleration?

Velocity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html

Relativistic Mass
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...isticMass.html

Acceleration
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...eleration.html


I'm not sure. Can you explain? Do you see some obvious misuse of the
terminology, and if so, how so?

The idea is to accelerate a component of a system and as you have just
tried to push it to the speed of light it gains mass.

Relativistic Mass depends on rest mass and [relative] velocity. Look
at the equations
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...isticMass.html


Otherwise the

object under constant acceleration would have a linear increase in
velocity.

The earth is under constant acceleration.


Classical mechanics says it does, relativistic mechanics

says it doesn't, have a linear increase in velocity over "linear",
constant-rate time. (A problem with that is that constant-rate is
defined in terms of time.)

Then the object is declerated, negative constant acceleration, with a
rapid and not instantaneous switchover. With 100% efficiency, as much
energy as was used to accelerate the particle is recovered, kinetic
energy back to potential energy.

So, the system always contains the same amount of energy, but it seems
that the relativistic mass or dilated rest mass fluctuates even as the
particle swings back and forth or goes in a circle. Does the system
have time effects on what seem dimensionless quantities in the
gravitational field equations? (Shrug, blank stare.)

Then, with that system being in the gravitational field of a much
larger object, eg Earth, does both its weight and mass appear to
fluctuate?

Ross


To first order, the mass of the Earth is a constant.


OK. The constant acceleration on the Earth is towards the Sun. Over
the course of the year that averages to around zero in the plane of its
orbit.

Say on the barge is a linear accelerator instead. So it accelerates a
particle and slows it towards the other side. The sum force on the
barge from positively and negatively accelerating is zero, but at the
maximum velocity of the particle it had its highest relativistic mass.


Yes, no?

Yes, with respect to the linear accelerator on the barge.


Perhaps you might conclude that the energy in potential form leads to
its own mass increases, eg, compressed springs massier than
uncompressed ones or hot batteries massier than cooler ones, but the
gravity doesn't know about relativistic velocity. To the Earth, the
system just gains mass, and loses it, without input or extraction of
energy.

That seems strange.

Sam Wormley wrote:
Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

Yes, with respect to the linear accelerator on the barge.



Doesn't that the mass increases also with respect to the Earth? If the
mass increases and decreases with respect to the Earth, then the
gravitational force between the Earth and the system correlatedly
varies.

The dual neutron star is a free laboratory for this experiment with one
regulation: the speed of light is a constant.





With their tanks, and their guns,
and their guns, and their bombs,
Zombie! Zombie! Zombie!
- Cranberries

"Perhaps you had better start from the beginning...."
"It is not heresy. I will not recant."
- White Zombie

"I have created a monsterpiece."

Fang you very much,

Ross

Hello

You are quoting a little part of Chapter 22.
Before this part in this chapter Einstein wrote:
the curvature of light rays is extremly small for gravitation fields
that experience puts to our disposal, it must reach
1,7 arc second for light rays that run close theedge of Sun .

By what mean had he calculaled this value ?
You can see that in Einstein's text. It is the famous calculation that gives
the gravitational lens effect.
What is not any relativistic effect but a perfect classical effect.

He makes the Sun gravitation exercing a force ,
F = G Mm/ d², on an equivalent mass ( exactly as it happens to a meteorit
mass running in the vicinity of Earth.
Consequently the light ray must have a velocity toward the Sun and its own
velocity C .
The two velocities are next added .
It is not the variation of position of light that produce a velocity
variation. Quite contrarily it is the Variation of compounded velocity that
makes
a position change.

Classical mean of physicists to sink the fish: to reverse cause and effect.
It is not the wind force pushing sails that makes the boat running away, it
is the depression on the sail side opposite to wind that pull the boat.
But they are bad sincethey are not able to sail only with the aspiration
force.

Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
VARIES WITH POSITION."


--
francis rey

Le fait d'apprendre beaucoup n'instruit pas l'intelligence
Heraclite d'Ephèse





The fact much to learn does not teach the intelligence



http//perso.wanadoo.fr/jeanfranraymond.rey
"Gregory L. Hansen" a écrit dans le message
de ...
In article .com,
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler
law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in
empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that
this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c=300000
km/s."

Chapter 22: "...the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
VARIES WITH POSITION."

The rational world would ask: How does the velocity of propagation of
light VARY WITH POSITION? Increases and becomes greater than c=300000
km/s? Decreases? Increase and decrease depend on what?

The zombie world asks nothing. It learns by rote, celebrates, worships,
sings dithyrambs, eats and teaches how to learn by rote, celebrate,
worship, sing dithyrambs and eat.

I almost thought you were asking a question because you wanted to learn
something.

Either you're a lot smarter and understand the theory better than all
those physicists around the world who spent years with pencil and paper at
hand working through these kinds of problems or...

No, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate! It can only be that
everyone in the world is stupid except for you.


--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible