"Mass doesn't change with speed" DEBUNKED

[Tom2]

There have been posters in this thread who have demonstrated a range of lack of physics and logic skills.

That poster would be you. You continually screw up everything on which you attempt to expound.

All those who are clueless about the nature and definition of angular momemtum are advised to borrow their Dad's or older sister's college physics textbook and put in a good bit of serious study time. Your grade school science books probably don't adequately cover the subject.

Recommended:
Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, second edition

Raymond Serway

Saunders College Publishing

ISBN 0-03-004854-0

Most have demonstrated such a total vacuity of understanding of angular momentum that you must be assigned to thoroughly study both Chapters Ten and Eleven. Just start reading on page 194 and keep going until you run out of chocalate milk and get up to get Mommy to fix you some more.

Again, you've put the irony meter in the red. CAN-o-GAS, it is you and you alone who has been making idiotic claims about angular momentum in this thread, and it is precisely because you haven't yet graduated from kiddie physics. Serway simply does not cover the subject of angular momentum in relativity. You need to consult a graduate level textbook such as Goldstein or Jackson for that. If you do then you will find that angular momentum is given in terms of an antisymmetric tensor:

m_μν=x_μp_ν-x_νp_μ

Your opening post is simply wrong, as are all of your other posts.

You have wasted far too much of my time already. The playroom is all yours. Pick up all your toys when you leave.

Nice copout, fuckwit.

I claim that...

No one cares. Your claims are based on your misunderstanding of freshman physics. The rest of us have mastered that material and a whole lot more besides. You are just making a fool of yourself.

 

[CANGAS]

That poster would be you. You continually screw up everything on which you attempt to expound.



Again, you've put the irony meter in the red. CAN-o-GAS, it is you and you alone who has been making idiotic claims about angular momentum in this thread, and it is precisely because you haven't yet graduated from kiddie physics. Serway simply does not cover the subject of angular momentum in relativity. You need to consult a graduate level textbook such as Goldstein or Jackson for that. If you do then you will find that angular momentum is given in terms of an antisymmetric tensor:

m_μν=x_μp_ν-x_νp_μ

Your opening post is simply wrong, as are all of your other posts.



Nice copout, fuckwit.



No one cares. Your claims are based on your misunderstanding of freshman physics. The rest of us have mastered that material and a whole lot more besides. You are just making a fool of yourself.

( expleted deleted ) ( expleted deleted ) TomTom has not explained to us how a flywheel, according to TomTom, can run at half of its original angular velocity, and according to TomTom, still have its original amount of angular momentum.

TomTom has claimed that a flywheel can have exactly the same angular momentum when spinning at one angular velocity and then at twice that angular velocity.

TomTom says that 1x2=1. Let's take a vote on whether it is a fool or is right. Everybody who agrees with TomTom raise one finger.

 

[Tom2]

CANGAS, if and when you ever manage to pull your head out of your ass, you feel free to come on over and wake me up. Until then I'll leave you to jerk off all over these straw men you've constructed.

Have fun, fuckwit.

 

[1100f]

Recommended:
Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, second edition

Raymond Serway

Saunders College Publishing

ISBN 0-03-004854-0

Quotes from the same book:Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, sixth edition
p 1267

39.6 Watch Out for
“Relativistic Mass”
Some older treatments of relativity
maintained the conservation
of momentum principle at
high speeds by using a model in
which the mass of a particle
increases with speed. You might
still encounter this notion of
“relativistic mass” in your
outside reading, especially in
older books. Be aware that this
notion is no longer widely accepted
and mass is considered
as invariant, independent of
speed. The mass of an object in
all frames is considered to be
the mass as measured by an
observer at rest with respect to
the object.

This seems to be indeed a good book for the undergraduate level, even though some subjects are missing from it, such as the differential form of the Maxwel''s equations (whose solutions in vaccuum are electromagnetic waves).
But at least, as I said, for the iundergraduate level, it seems OK. The only thing left to the reader is to try to understand it.

 

[CANGAS]

Quotes from the same book:Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, sixth edition
p 1267



This seems to be indeed a good book for the undergraduate level, even though some subjects are missing from it, such as the differential form of the Maxwel''s equations (whose solutions in vaccuum are electromagnetic waves).
But at least, as I said, for the iundergraduate level, it seems OK. The only thing left to the reader is to try to understand it.

My demonstration of the reluctance of Einstein Relativity to uphold conservation of ANGULAR MOMENTUM within the Tril' theory of the admission of time dilation concomitant denial of transformation of inertial mass has been explained so plainly and clearly that even a grade school child ( not intoxicated, as some posters in this thread seem to have been ) could easily understand it.

My demonstration does not depend on appeal to expert opinion but rather only to a most basic level of intellectual logic.

Would you, as an exercise in raw thinking ability, specifically refer to my thread start post and refute it on its own specific terms? Assuming, of course, that you are capable of a very basic level of raw thinking ability.

 

[1100f]

My demonstration of the reluctance of Einstein Relativity to uphold conservation of ANGULAR MOMENTUM within the Tril' theory of the admission of time dilation concomitant denial of transformation of inertial mass has been explained so plainly and clearly that even a grade school child ( not intoxicated, as some posters in this thread seem to have been ) could easily understand it.

My demonstration does not depend on appeal to expert opinion but rather only to a most basic level of intellectual logic.

Would you, as an exercise in raw thinking ability, specifically refer to my thread start post and refute it on its own specific terms? Assuming, of course, that you are capable of a very basic level of raw thinking ability.

You didn't show that angular momentum is not conserved. You just said that the angular momentum is not the same in all reference frame. But this is what happens even in classical mechanics. Angular momentum is frame dependent even in classical mechanics

 

[Tom2]

Good grief CANGAS, you still haven't gotten it yet? Go back to your physics book and read about the conservation laws. They have nothing to do with changing reference frames! Angular momentum is conserved in SR in every inertial frame. This has nothing to do with the fact that different observers disagree on the value of that conserved quantity.

Would you, as an exercise in raw thinking ability, specifically refer to my thread start post and refute it on its own specific terms? Assuming, of course, that you are capable of a very basic level of raw thinking ability.

That's cute, coming from you. Re-read posts 4,5,16, and 21 (assuming that you can in fact read them). Your errors have been pointed out to you several times.

Not all of your errors were pointed out though. Since it's the holiday season, and I'm in the spirit of giving, I'll point out two more of your errors to you free of charge.

* You obtained the incorrect value for the Lorentz transformed angular momentum. It will not be half its original value. I'm not feeling like doing much work right now so I don't have the correct value handy, but you do have to do a Lorentz transformation on the angular momentum tensor to obtain it. You clearly haven't done that.

* There is a complication that you haven't accounted for: the flywheel won't be a circle in the boosted frame. Its length will be contracted in the direction of the boost, and you will have a rotating ellipse. This will affect the Lorentz-transformed rotational inertia in a way that you haven't considered.

You didn't show that angular momentum is not conserved. You just said that the angular momentum is not the same in all reference frame. But this is what happens even in classical mechanics. Angular momentum is frame dependent even in classical mechanics

Are you listening CANGAS? I hope so, because he's right. Even more explicitly consider a particle moving relative to a coordinate system along the line y=1 with momentum 1 kg*m/s in the positive x direction and let it be at the point (0,1) when t=0. Then the radial vector relative to the origin is r=vt i + 1 j. The angular momentum about the origin in the frame defined by the coordinate system is then L=1 kg*m^2/s. Now perform a Galilean boost to the rest frame of the particle. The angular momentum about that point is now zero. And guess what? That doesn't mean that angular momentum isn't conserved with Galilean relativity, either.

 

[CANGAS]

Congratulations, TomTom, on struggling through an entire post without even one obscene vulgarity. Some words on your keyboard worn out?

And congratulations, 1100f, you have written an entire post with some degree of coherence. Whiskey cabinet locked?

You are both pretending to be missing my point. I am also capable of charity and will therefore belabour myself to try to explain it simply enough one more time.

Angular momentum is a direct result of angular velocity ( which I like to refer to as RPM ), and the mass of the rotating body. In the stationary laboratory reference frame a flywheel turning at a specific RPM will therefore have a specific quantity of angular momentum. In the stationary laboratory, if the RPM is changed, the angular momentum must be observed to be changed; if the RPM is reduced to half then the angular momentum must be observed to be reduced to half.

If the flywheel, still turning at its original full RPM and running in its frictionless environment, is moved from the lab into one of the mint condition recovered flying saucers which I have borrowed from A51 and is flown into space and accelerated to a relativistic velocity then an observer still sitting still in the lab can look up and observe, according to Tril', real time dilation in the flying saucer.

The flying flywheel will be observed, by the stationary observer still in the lab, to be turning slower as a result of real time dilation. If its RPM is observed to be half of its original lab RPM, then its angular momentum must be observed to be half its original amount.

Unless the flywheel mass has INCREASED in the same proportion that its angular velocity has DROPPED.

Therefore, momentum, in the form of angular momentum, is lost, also translated as not conserved, if time dilation is admitted, but mass transformation is disavowed.

Of course you(all) are welcome to present fully worked out calculations of elipticity or complex tensor mathemagicke if you wish to do so. However, merely saying the words "ellipse" or "tensor" is, as a famous scientist once said "not even right enough to be wrong".

 

[Tom2]

Angular momentum is a direct result of angular velocity ( which I like to refer to as RPM ), and the mass of the rotating body.

No, angular momentum has a precise mathematical definition. Your sloppily tossed word salad isn't it.

You are both pretending to be missing my point. I am also capable of charity and will therefore belabour myself to try to explain it simply enough one more time.

No, we both get your point. Your point is simply wrong. Read those posts to which I referred you. Again.

Therefore, momentum, in the form of angular momentum, is lost, also translated as not conserved, if time dilation is admitted, but mass transformation is disavowed.

No. Frame dependence does not imply non-conservation. This has been pointed out multiple times. You simply do not understand anything about physics.

Of course you(all) are welcome to present fully worked out calculations of elipticity or complex tensor mathemagicke if you wish to do so. However, merely saying the words "ellipse" or "tensor" is, as a famous scientist once said "not even right enough to be wrong".

It is right, whether or not I choose to work out the mathematics for you. I am under no duty to do your homework for you. Instead, try reading that freshman physics book by Serway. If you actually had any interest in physics, you would have done that already and we wouldn't be having this conversation. As it stands right now, you aren't even exhibiting enough knowledge to pass a course based on that book.

 

[CANGAS]

No. Frame dependence does not imply non-conservation.

You are really able to strain an honest man's charity. I will again try to help you understand this thing that is so hard for you to understand.

The lab observer watching the borrowed flying saucer whiz by absolutely positively sees the frictionless flywheel mysteriously turning at half its original RPM, with no identifiable source of physical explanation for the slowdown, therefore it has LOST HALF ITS ORIGINAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM, in that observer's humble opinion.

Going back to those thrilling days of yesteryear, you might remember ( or might not ) that the great furor over the infamous twin paradox was settled by the publication of General Relativity and its revelation that the twin who had been accelerating in his flying saucer was IN THE FRAME THAT REALLY enjoyed the pleasures of having his time dilated and the twin left behind only had the pleasure of WATCHING the dilation go by; the stationary observer had no choice but to age by regular time and the flying twin had no choice but to age by slowed time. By analogy, we then see that our flying flywheel has no choice but to slow to half RPM ( with no mechanical explanation ) and our observer still in the lab has no choice except to observe the flywheel turning at half speed and therefore having half its original angular momentum. The flywheel RPM is totally frame dependent, if the forty million professional physicists who have agreed to the GR resolution of the twin paradox are to be trusted. And, unless the mass of the flywheel is considered to be increased by being transformed, HALF OF THE ORIGINAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF THE FLYWHEEL HAS BEEN LOST, AS IN NOT CONSERVED.

Which part of the word "is" is it that you are having the most trouble understanding?

 

[Tom2]

You are really able to strain an honest man's charity. I will again try to help you understand this thing that is so hard for you to understand.

I understand exactly what you are saying. I understand that it is wrong.

The lab observer watching the borrowed flying saucer whiz by absolutely positively sees the frictionless flywheel mysteriously turning at half its original RPM, with no identifiable source of physical explanation for the slowdown, therefore it has LOST HALF ITS ORIGINAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM, in that observer's humble opinion.

Yes, you've just stated the well-known fact of the frame dependence of angular momentum. Yet for some strange reason you continue to confuse that with non-conservation of angular momentum. Go back to your freshman physics textbook and read up on conservation laws. They don't say what you think they say.

 

[CANGAS]

I understand exactly what you are saying. I understand that it is wrong.

Yes, you've just stated the well-known fact of the frame dependence of angular momentum. Yet for some strange reason you continue to confuse that with non-conservation of angular momentum. Go back to your freshman physics textbook and read up on conservation laws. They don't say what you think they say.

TomTom, are you only fluent in Martian? If a thing is frame dependent, then it is invalid in the "wrong" frame. Since time dilation is only valid as happening in the accelerated frame, as viewed by an observer in the stationary (non-accelerated) frame, then the stationary observer's observation of failure of conservation of momentum is the only valid observation.

When the (non-accelerated) lab observer looks up at the whizzing (previously accelerated) flying saucer and sees the flywheel running at half RPM with no mechanical reason for the slowdown then the lab observer's conclusion that angular momentum has been mysteriously lost is the only valid opinion based upon the only valid observer's reference frame.

My freshman physics texts, and my more advanced texts all say exactly what I think they say. Unfortunately, they rarely say what you think they say.

You have been arguing off at a tangent in this thread for far too long. I did not start this thread to be a vantage point for TomTom to brag about how smart it is and how stupid old CANGAS is. This thread was started as a retort to Trillian's thread in which T claimed that Einstein Relativity needed only to transform time and could not transform mass in respect to momentum. T posted mathemagicke "proof" and blatant verbal statement for the position that ANY TRANSFORMATION OF MASS was wrong.

I started this thread to rebut T's position with my claim that Einstein Relativity fails to be self consistent when transformation of mass is not permitted. My specific point was that momentum is not observed to be conserved unless mass is transformed. If momentum is not conserved in the observation of every observer, then the Second Postulate is a lie and Einstein relativity is proved to be dead.

T's mathematical "proof" is rife with error, but I choose to ignore that and rather point out the failure of conservation of angular momentum.

Your arm waving and flapdoodle about how magicke tensors transform mass and conserve momentum have absolutely nothing to do with this thread unless you are trying to prove that I am right and that Trillaneum is wrong. You have been acting like Trilanoron's bosom buddy. Are you sure you want to be trying to prove that I am right in this arguement?

Not that there's anything wrong with you proving that I am right.

My posted description of the failure of conservation of angular momentum is not all of the bad news for Relativity devotees. There is an easily discerned (but not for some of you) extrapolation of my posted scenario which is so beautifully simple that you would have to agree with it. Anyone with the intellect of a small child will be able to understand it if it is posted.

And there is also a failure of inertial mass in linear venue if mass is not transformed but time is transformed.

So, TomTom, I think that it is overdue for you to get on topic in this thread. But if you want to start your own thread about "How smart TomTom is" or "How many ways Relativity fails to conserve momentum if Trilonian is right" then I promise to read your thread and comment.

 

[Farsight]

I think mass increases with velocity. See MASS EXPLAINED for why.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61557

 

[Farsight]

Does anybody know anything about this R L Collins guy?

http://www.mass-metricgravity.net/

"The mass-metric relativity (MMR), developed here, holds that the shrinkage exists but is isotropic. This means that a standard meter stick has its maximum length when it does not move relative to the observer, and that that observer must infer that a moving meter stick has shrunk isotropically. Two observers, one moving at constant speed relative to the other, must each infer that the metric of the other has shrunk.

This problem does not exist, if we hold that mass is constant. Many physicists, perhaps most, deny that speed really increases mass. They agree that one must use "relativistic" mass, which increases with speed, in order to design accelerators which accelerate particles to high speeds. But this is somehow not really mass, mass which is presumed constant and which is intrinsic to each body..."

 

[CANGAS]

I am preparing a brief post clearly explaining in specific and very simply stated terms how the angular momentum of the moving ( and time dilated ) flywheel can be undeniably tested by the Earthbound stationary observer and will post it in short order.

 

[Pete]

Want to make it a test Alpha thread? Put "(Alpha)" before the subject if so, and add a link to the Alpha Rules thread.

 

[CANGAS]

Want to make it a test Alpha thread? Put "(Alpha)" before the subject if so, and add a link to the Alpha Rules thread.

I have always tried to conduct my posts here in a civil and honest way. I have only skimmed the fine print of the alpha rules and so will delay entry into ALPHA for only the short time it takes to go over the rules with my lawyer's fine toothed comb. Almost certainly, I will soon agree to such a thing.

 

[vx220]

I dunno, I find all that SRT stuff a bit coined really.

If you were in some kind of a super space ship and trying to accelerate to 0.99c. And lets say you are observed to have done it, reach speed of 0.99c.
How would this look like for you? You would be in a space ship burning enormous amounts of energy. Such amounts that would be able to accelerate your ship to speeds far beyond 0.99c. But then it is said that you're actually using such amounts of energy because the mass increases with speed. You will reach your destination as if you were going a lot faster than 0.99c. But it is said that when you're going that fast distance contracts for you. When you reach your destination you will notice more time has passed than you experienced. Infact, they have observed you traveling at 0.99c through uncontracted distance which obviously took a lot longer than you going at 0.99c through contracted distance..

so in essence it seems to me that is coined that if you observe something going at 0.5c that something will observe you going at the same 0.5c... why should this be true? maybe the observation is wrong? maybe it is warped? maybe going really fast causes frame dragging through time so you're only able to see someone moving at 0.5c and he is really moving a lot faster. no distance contraction happens and no mass increase. only "skipping" through time. in essence, increasing your speed through space increases your speed through time.
im sure the whole SRT thing can be done that way too?

 

[vx220]

within regular SRT i think relativistic mass is a consequence of time dilation. mass or rather its effects are closely related to time..
you could say that spending energy to accelerate mass you spend extra energy to dilate its time or simply replace the whole thing with "relativistic mass". but you need to be real careful within which time frame you apply the effects of relativistic mass.. something like that..

 

[vx220]

anyway, think about it.. flat space. things in motion "skip" through time. more motion more skipping through time. maximum speed is infinite but observed as c. it is observed as c because the maximum speed(infinity) causes a finite time factor - 1s skip through every 300000km. this causes a photon to appear 300000km further after 1s..

going at 100000000km per second of your own time causes you to skip through a static observers time. he sees you go slower because at each point he observes you, you have skipped through more time than him, so he needs to wait for you to appear at the next point.. he needs to wait longer for the moment to arrive to see you there.. so he thinks you move slower..

no relativistic mass and no distance contraction.. only time skipping.. could it work as well as SRT?