TomTom, are you only fluent in Martian?
No, I'm fluent in both English
and mathematics. You clearly aren't, and that is why you can't seem to understand anything about anything.
If a thing is frame dependent, then it is invalid in the "wrong" frame.
Incorrect. There is no "wrong" frame in SR, in that there is no preferred frame of reference. It doesn't matter if you're talking about the lifetime if a subatomic particle, the length of a ruler, or the angular momentum of a flywheel. Every inertial observer's claims are equally valid in SR.
Since time dilation is only valid as happening in the accelerated frame,
I don't know where you got that from, but it certainly isn't a physics textbook. Time dilation occurs reciprocally among inertial frames. Accelerated frames needn't be brought into it at all.
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.
I already pointed out to you in Post 4 that a noninertial observer will not agree that the laws of mechanics hold good. That would include conservation of angular momentum. But the frame dependence of angular momentum has
nothing to do with its conservation. In SR, whether or not you adopt the convention of relativistic mass, all inertial observers agree that angular momentum is conserved.
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.
No, the only valid opinion is that conservation laws hold in inertial frames, and that they don't necessarily hold in noninertial frames. That shouldn't be too surprising because it's only one of the
postulates of relativity!
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.
Wrong on both counts. It's plainly obvious that you have no comprehension of physics beyond "what goes up, must come down".
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.
No, I have been arguing on topic the entire time. The simple fact of the matter is that you
are too stupid to see it.
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.
Again, your inability to understand what you read has hamstrung you. It seems that you only digested the title of his thread, and that the rest of what he wrote went completely over your head. In Post 1 of his thread he showed that relativistic mass is not
implied by SR, and in Post 17 of that thread he conceded that Einstein did use it. But the main point of that thread, which you seem to have completely missed, is that relativistic mass is not forced on us by SR.
And by the way, the word is "mathematical", not "mathemagicke". The fact that you consider valid mathematics and good theoretical physics in some way "magickal" makes you look like a superstitious idiot.
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.
And you're rebuttal is plainly wrong.
Every modern physicists uses invariant mass, and there are no inconsistencies with it.
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.
This is pathetic. CAN-O-GAS, it's plainly obvious that you didn't understand a single line of the mathematics. That's why you dismiss it out of hand as "magick" without addressing it.
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?
No,
you are the one who has been waving your hands. You haven't backed up
anything that you have said with any valid logic. And everything that I have posted
does prove you wrong. It is a pity that you are too stupid to see that, but it is in fact the case.
Not that there's anything wrong with you proving that I am right.
It is not possible to prove false statements.
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.
You don't understand
anything about relativity. All of your silly problems would be resolved if you would just study the subject. Of course, you would have to smarten up first to ensure that you don't continue to misunderstand every single thing that you read.
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.
I've been on topic, and your argument is finished. The only one who doesn't see it is you.