"Mass doesn't change with speed" DEBUNKED

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.
Click to expand...

Clearly. It is refreshing to see that someone who is proposing to change a fundamental theory understands exactly what he is doing.

What's the problem? If particles can acquire their mass from interacting with the Higgs field, then we can determine the mass by how strong the coupling. However, the Higgs field is more a requirement to understand the symmetries involved as opposed to merely predicting the mass.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Yes---the higgs field will not predict masses, but I didn't think that Farsight was proposing to predict masses either.
 
BenTheMan said:
Thank you. Yes---the higgs field will not predict masses, but I didn't think that Farsight was proposing to predict masses either.
Click to expand...

He appears to have predicted... er, asserted mass in photons -- I'm all aquiver of his next proposal. ;)
 
I do think it is funny that people challenge GR (i.e. photon mass) but think that intelligent design is "not science".
 
(Q) said:
What's the problem? If particles can acquire their mass from interacting with the Higgs field, then we can determine the mass by how strong the coupling. However, the Higgs field is more a requirement to understand the symmetries involved as opposed to merely predicting the mass.
Click to expand...

The problem is that BenTheMan accuses me of advocating Intelligent Design because I can explain mass. As it happens I've had long and fruitless "debates" with Young Earth Creationists, who duck and dive to evade every point raised about the fossil record, evolution, plate tectonics, you name it. I dislike religion, because people who've got it just don't think. I know the equation Ben refers to. And I know it evades the true relationship between energy, momentum, and mass. I know how mass arises. I know what it is. And I know that the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson is a figleaf of an answer that is in reality no answer at all. But rather than look at what I'm saying and enter into a genuine discussion to demonstrate where I'm mistaken, BenTheMan, actual physicist, chooses to spray insults and pour scorn. There's been a lot of debate in physics about whether we should consider rest mass or relativistic mass to be the better definition. And it's either ignorance, or intellectual arrogance, or both to pretend otherwise.

Edit: for anybody with a serious interesting, this is an interesting essay by a guy called Pete Brown.

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/mass_paper.pdf

"Within the past fifteen years the use of the term relativistic mass has been declining. The term proper mass simply referred to as mass and labeled m has now largely replaced ‘relativistic mass.’ This decline in usage appears to be due to arguments presented in several journal articles, as well as to standard practices in the field of particle physics. This debate consists of arguments as to how the term “mass” should be defined to maximize logic as well as less confusing. My purpose in this article is to clarify the arguments of the debate and to bring a unifying perspective to the subject. In doing so I will explore the importance of point particles vs. extended objects; open vs. closed systems. Although I argue for the usage of relativistic mass I do not argue that proper mass is not an important tool in relativistic dynamics."
 
Last edited:
Farsight said:
... I can explain mass. I know how mass arises. I know what it is.
Click to expand...

Not by anything you've claimed thus far.

I know the equation Ben refers to. And I know it evades the true relationship between energy, momentum, and mass.
Click to expand...

Yet, you've not explained that.

But rather than look at what I'm saying and enter into a genuine discussion to demonstrate where I'm mistaken, BenTheMan, actual physicist, chooses to spray insults and pour scorn.
Click to expand...

Actually, BenTheMan, corrected you exactly where it was necessary to demonstrate. It was you who said "Bah" without explaining yourself.

There's been a lot of debate in physics about whether we should consider rest mass or relativistic mass to be the better definition. And it's either ignorance, or intellectual arrogance, or both to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

The debate currently resides between those who understand physics and those who don't.
 
Can you back that up by pointing out where MASS EXPLAINED is incorrect? Using reason, rationale, and logic? Because if you can't:

(Q) said:
Sorry, but at this time, I went to that link and did not find a single poster or post who understood or explained mass. That is not an insult, but a fact.
Click to expand...


..is an insult. And if you can judge whether some poster understands mass, you explain mass for us.
 
Farsight said:
Can you back that up by pointing out where MASS EXPLAINED is incorrect? Using reason, rationale, and logic?
Click to expand...

We've already been down that road before and it was a complete waste of time. You weren't interested in listening to reason, rationale or logic then, why should now be any different?
 
(Q) said:
We've already been down that road before and it was a complete waste of time. You weren't interested in listening to reason, rationale or logic then, why should now be any different?
Click to expand...

Would you like to repeat that? Seeing as there are only three posts on the MASS EXPLAINED thread, all by me. Care to check?

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

Come on, point out where MASS EXPLAINED is incorrect using reason and logic. Insults just don't cut it.
 
Farsight said:
Would you like to repeat that?
Click to expand...

No, no, you don't understand, after your first "Explained" theory, I gave up.

Seeing as there are only three posts on the MASS EXPLAINED thread, all by me. Care to check?
Click to expand...

That fact that there are only three posts and all of them yours peaks volumes, don't it?
 
You gave explanations? Who are you trying to fool? Here's what you posted:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1195513&postcount=3
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1196552&postcount=22
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1196680&postcount=28
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1196552&postcount=40

Q said:
Are you sure your flaws weren't pointed out and you simply refused to accept it?

What is your problem, pal? I asked a question based directly at one of his comments, if you don't like it, too bad. It' isn't trolling, numbnuts...

...Time used to be defined via pendulum, then via quarts crystal oscillations, then via Cs electron oscillation, and soon via H electron oscillation. This is how time is measured, and in that essence, how time is therefore DEFINED and understood...

You see, I was right, Farsight simply ignores everything and presses on with his pet theory. Typical kook.
Click to expand...

Not an ounce of reason there. Not a soupcon of logic. Just insults.
 
Last edited:
Anyhow, to get back to the point, I believe I have an understanding of what mass is, see MASS EXPLAINED:

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

..and this understanding makes me think that relativistic mass is a better definition of mass than rest mass because it reflects the relationship between inertia, and momentum confined to one location. Hence I would say that IMHO mass does change with speed. Yes, you can argue against this, but if your argument is "mass is defined to be rest mass" you're offering an axiomatic dismissal not an argument.
 
Pete said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Angular velocity is changing while the angular momentum is not."

Pete; We have hundreds of years of physics texts that tell us that angular momentum is based on RPM and mass of the flywheel. We have a gedanken in which the same stationary observer first observes the flywheel sitting on the lab floor spinning at 6,000 RPM and then observes it whizzing in space and running at 3,000 RPM with no mechanical braking.

Then we read you writing by fiat, with no shred of documentation or logical demonstration or math demonstration, that angular momentum is no longer determined by equations based on Newton physics.

All I can say is that it will be a great surprise to the more than 40,000,000 professional mechanical engineers who have been successfully using the Newton equation.
 
Last edited:
CANGAS said:
Then we read you writing by fiat, with no shred of documentation or logical demonstration or math demonstration, that angular momentum is no longer determined by equations based on Newton physics.
Click to expand...
It's easy enough to look up for yourself, CANGAS. Why don't you pull out one of those physics texts and see what they have to say about angular momentum under relativity?

All I can say is that it will be a great surprise to the more than 40,000,000 professional mechanical engineers who have been successfully using the Newton equation.
Click to expand...
No more than GR would be a surprise to all the professional rocket scientists who have been successfully using the Newton equations for gravity.
No mechanical engineers work with macroscopic objects at relativistic speeds. If they did, the Newton equations wouldn't work.
 
Last edited:
Pete said:
It's easy enough to look up for yourself, CANGAS. Why don't you pull out one of those physics texts and see what they have to say about angular momentum under relativity?


No more than GR would be a surprise to all the professional rocket scientists who have been successfully using the Newton equations for gravity.
No mechanical engineers work with macroscopic objects at relativistic speeds. If they did, the Newton equations wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

Pete: Just when you thought it was still safe to make an non sequitor post and get away with it again;

Since you obviously missed it; the point of my thread, plainly stated in its title, is to refute the assertion of a fellow poster that Special Relativity can be perverted to allowing time dilation while disallowing mass transformation.

Trelirium asserted that it had provided mathematical proof that time is transformed while mass is not changed at all in respect to velocity within Special Relativity. I have claimed that SR is rendered fatally wounded when transformation of mass is denied.

Your statement, or that of anyone, who insists upon dragging any form of Relativistic transformation of mass into a discussion of Treliriums's assertion that SR is valid IN THE ABSENCE OF MASS TRANSFORMATION, is rank nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top