Do you also believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?
I take exception to that.
Edit: no, I certainly don't believe Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. I very much dislike religion.
Last edited:
Do you also believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?
By the way, your equations are wrong:
$$E^2 = m_0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 = h^2 f^2$$
only implies for a photon that
$$p = \frac{hf}{c}$$.
No, the observer could accelerate away from a flywheel spinning in space and the observer would still see the flywheel slow down in its rotational speed once the observer stops accelerating in his new inertial frame, according to Special Theory. It has been proven that accelerating an object (the observer) has no effect on the rate it counts time, only acceleration due to a gravitational field causes clocks to slow in the non-inertial frames.CANGAS,
As I said in my previous post dp/dt is not zero in your experiment since you need to accelerate the "flywheel" to the considered speed of 0.866C and so you have a net force F acting.
Initially, at t1, you have angular momentum p1. Finally, at t2, you have p2.
The difference is p2-p1=Δp.
Now, F=Δp/Δt which is the average force acting on the flywheel through the space-time during the interval Δt=t2-t1.
No force (torque actually, since we're talking rotation) is applied.2inquisitive said:Letting the flywheel free-fall in a gravitational field slows 'time' relative to a stationary observer as it nears the gravitating object, but what 'force' could slow the actual rotational speed of the flywheel itself?
There are two possibilities to see the flywheel slow down:the observer could accelerate away from a flywheel spinning in space and the observer would still see the flywheel slow down in its rotational speed once the observer stops accelerating in his new inertial frame, according to Special Theory.
Are you stating that I will measure the rotational velocity of a flywheel as different if I am moving at a various non-relativistic velocities wrt the flywheel?One is this cited above, changing the frame of observation and this one was already largely covered by Trilarian, Tom2, etc when they state that in that case the problem is that the momentum is frame dependent. Different observers measure different momentums of the same flywheel as the velocity is measured different. This happens also in Classical Physics!
There may be some confusion about the flywheel's charateristics in this thread. I stated a flywheel rotating on frictionless bearings. How is the non-zero force (the acceleration) that slows the flywheel applied? My second example was of a flywheel in gravitational freefall anyway.The second one was the pointed one by CANGAS when he asked for the problem when the frame is maintained the same and the flywheel is accelerated to some velocity. This is the problem I covered finding that there is a non zero force F=Δp/Δt due to the unavoidable acceleration which causes the variation in the momentum.
The part in bold is what I do not agree with. Why would a stationary observer see the angular velocity of the freefalling flywheel change? I agree that the stationary observer would see a change in a freefalling cesium clock's rate, but not a change in the rotational speed of a freefalling flywheel.No force (torque actually, since we're talking rotation) is applied.
Torque is the rate of change in angular momentum.
In this case, the angular momentum is constant. Of course, it immediately follows that angular momentum is not determined by the newtonian formula, since the angular velocity is changing while the angular momentum is not.
That is Relativity!There may be some confusion about the flywheel's charateristics in this thread. I stated a flywheel rotating on frictionless bearings. How is the non-zero force (the acceleration) that slows the flywheel applied?
I don't know. It seems to be part of the nature of the Universe... I don't know why.The part in bold is what I do not agree with. Why would a stationary observer see the angular velocity of the freefalling flywheel change?
Huh? No they're not, and what's all this about?
IMHO the equation above relating energy to mass and momentum is an either-or fudge to cope with mass-ive or massless entities. It ducks the issue of what mass is.
"Mass doesn't change with speed"
These are the correct equations, whether you accept them or not. As soon as something is moving, the mass-energy relation is the equation that I wrote down.
Mass is generated by the coupling of matter to the Higgs field. Case closed.
LOL, and the earth is flat because it says so in this here book.
Bah, you don't understand mass at all. Higgs field, LOL.