Relativistic Mass ?

billvon said:
Nope, that argument is easy to win. If A is zero, then distance equals zero per the above equation. If you disagree with THAT, then remedial algebra would be in order.

What you have discovered is that although distance does indeed equal zero when acceleration equals zero, that's not the issue; that equation alone does not adequately describe the system. If you argue with the math you're having the wrong argument anyway. Which is what you are doing with all your Newtonian arguments on relativistic frames. Your math is right, but you're having the wrong argument.
Click to expand...

Your misunderstanding and ignorance doesn't equate to me, that is your absolute ignorance, which is not relative to me, other than that the further you are away from me the less you will annoy me.


Gravity race


Let's just ASSUME the Earth has the mass of 5,974,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg.

We are going to compare impact times of two different objects when dropped from an exact height of 16.087 feet.

Object A has a mass of 1 kg
Object B has a mass of 10 kg

Using the formula A=(L-S)/R2

Object A has a "A value" of 371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.93976503

Object B has a "A value" of 371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.38030708

A previous test was done with object A. It was determined that object A took exactly 1 second to impact the ground when dropped from a height of 16.087 feet, which is an acceleration of 32.174 ft/sec^2.


That means an “A value” of 1, has an acceleration of
32.174/371,368,185,491,390,563,809,286.93976503=

.000000000000000000000086636392822469954136118658002141 ft/sec^2

If you multiply that by Object B’s “A value”, you find an acceleration of 32.173999999999999999999951530582 ft/sec^2 for object B.

Now, let’s look at the time it takes for each object to hit the ground, when dropped from the 16.087 feet.

Object A- 1.0000000000000000000000000000000 seconds
Object B- 1.0000000000000000000000007532389 seconds




Now I'm not trying to say those numbers were actual measurements I took. I am saying that this is an example of different acceleration rates and different times.

You see how the distance they traveled was all constant acceleration?


Still waiting on your answer to the scenario I gave you.

Still waiting on AN's answer to the Torque/HP scenario.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Your misunderstanding and ignorance doesn't equate to me, that is your absolute ignorance, which is not relative to me, other than that the further you are away from me the less you will annoy me.
Click to expand...

Your trolls are going downhill. Where's the denigration of Einstein and Hawking? The rejection of experimental results? Now it's just a bunch of insults.

A previous test was done with object A.
Click to expand...

Now you are using _experimental_results?_ The same sorts of results you were attacking just yesterday? For shame, MotorDaddy, for shame!
 
billvon said:
Nope, that argument is easy to win. If A is zero, then distance equals zero per the above equation. If you disagree with THAT, then remedial algebra would be in order.
Click to expand...

Again, your ignorance of the equation is laughable!!

The distance you are talking about in that equation is the distance the object traveled while accelerating at a constant rate. That equation is only used in order to calculate the distance that the object traveled while accelerating. If the object didn't accelerate then there is nothing to calculate so why would you try to use that equation when you have nothing to calculate?

Again, it's your own ignorance that is causing the problem.
 
Next time you're in your car on the highway, travel a constant speed like 60 MPH on a flat road, and then push the accelerator pedal a good amount and hold the pedal in the same position and notice how over the duration of time the force between you and the seat decreases as the velocity increases.
 
Do you base your troll score ratings on absolutes or are they relative say to another site's troll ratings? What is the standard rating so I know which is correct?
 
wellwisher said:
This is not true and can be demonstrated with an experiment. Say we had two rockets in relative motion of velocity =V. One rocket has mass M and the other has mass 2M. It is hard to tell who has the motion so say we assume relative. Depending on who you choose to move, you would get two different energy balances. The 2M reference will see kinetic energy eqaul to 1/2MV2 if it assumes the other is moving. The M reference will see kinetic energy equal to MV2 if its assumes the 2M is moving. These references are not relative if we do an energy balance. They are relative to velocity (d/t) (space-time) but not in terms of mass/energy.

Relative reference only works if we can avoid an energy balance. In the above example, say we had a head on collision between the two rockets. We can pretend up to the collision they are relative, but once they collide the collision outcome will be differerent depending on who is moving. This creates a reality check.

I used M and 2M, since if they were twins, you can avoid the energy balance by making it the same either way. If need to make them different to avoid the wrong inference based on the fixed deck.

Based on the collision dynamics, we can infer who has the energy. We can still use relative reference to calculate the original velocity. The collision tells us who has the energy. We then use that velocity, to calculate relativistic mass of rocket that carries all the energy and momentum. This will be different depending on who was moving.
Click to expand...
It's not true because mass is invariant. What increases is momentum which is frame dependent. Not mass. Review the relativistic energy equation.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Next time you're in your car on the highway, travel a constant speed like 60 MPH on a flat road, and then push the accelerator pedal a good amount and hold the pedal in the same position and notice how over the duration of time the force between you and the seat decreases as the velocity increases.
Click to expand...

You're making a fool of yourself. The force between you and the seat decreases as the acceleration decreases. It has nothing to do with the instantaneous speed. If you can't solve this simple problem you shouldn't be posting on science threads.
 
brucep said:
You're making a fool of yourself. The force between you and the seat decreases as the acceleration decreases. It has nothing to do with the instantaneous speed. If you can't solve this simple problem you shouldn't be posting on science threads.
Click to expand...

So maybe you can help your buddy answer the question: I jack up the front of my car. The wheel is free to rotate, but you will have to do some work to get it spinning. You accelerate the rotational velocity of the wheel from 0 RPM to 100 RPM and you maintain that rotational velocity of 100 RPM by performing a slight amount of work to keep it rotating at that constant rotational velocity.

Q: Since you increased the rotational velocity of the wheel from 0 RPM to 100 RPM, will it be just as easy for you to increase the rotational velocity from 100-200 RPM?

You can use a crank handle if you like, instead of smacking the tire with your hand and getting it all dirty if you forgot to wear your gloves.
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
Still waiting on AN's answer to the Torque/HP scenario.
Click to expand...
1. I explained that if you cannot formalise the problem properly I'm not going to do it for you
2. You have provided zero evidence your claims align with reality
3. Every claim of yours I've thus far addressed I've exposed the flaws of
4. You've shown you're deliberately dishonest
5. You've proven you don't know what mainstream physics says

You don't respect yourself enough to find out information for your own benefit and you don't respect anyone else enough to discuss things in an honest fashion. So you can continue to try to bait me, you simply continue to show the pathetic person you are because that is what you are if you're deliberately ignorant and dishonest.
 
billvon said:
Your trolls are going downhill. Where's the denigration of Einstein and Hawking? The rejection of experimental results? Now it's just a bunch of insults.



Now you are using _experimental_results?_ The same sorts of results you were attacking just yesterday? For shame, MotorDaddy, for shame!
Click to expand...

Hawkings ..

In his bestseller “A Brief History of Time”, (1988) Hawkings said “we may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature.” Difficult to beleive that a man of such supposed intellect would say such a thing, but it is so - as many others have done through every scientific epoch (Kelvin also comes immediatley to mind).

Now, in his recently published book "The Grand Design" he speaks of “A universe that is different…from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago”.

Should we believe him then, or now ?
 
billvon, are you still working on the question I asked you?

Motor Daddy said:
A rocket is in space. T=0 the rocket is 3 meters away from a red absolute zero velocity ball in space. At t=3 the ball remains 3 meters away. t=1267 - 3 meters away. T=3467234, 3 meters away. At t=3467234 the rocket accelerates at a rate of 10 m/s^2. The rocket stops accelerating when it is 18 meters away from the red ball and continues to travel for an additional 5 seconds until it crashed into a blue zero velocity ball. What time did the balls crash?
Click to expand...
 
Motor Daddy said:
I gave you the A, 10 m/s^2.
Click to expand...
You also said
Motor Daddy said:
The rocket stops accelerating when it is 18 meters away from the red ball
Click to expand...

which makes A=0. billvon was simply applying one of the formulas you said you believe rules over Nature: d = ½At², from which we are forced to calculate d = ½(0)t = 0.
 
Aqueous Id said:
You also said


which makes A=0. billvon was simply applying one of the formulas you said you believe rules over Nature: d = ½At², from which we are forced to calculate d = ½(0)t = 0.
Click to expand...

You are just as ignorant as he is.

I can break the entire scenario into different states of motion.

1. The rocket at rest 3 meters away from the red ball for 3467234 seconds. That is time at rest.
2. The rocket accelerates at a rate of 10 m/s^2 for a distance of 15 meters. That is acceleration time.
3. The acceleration stops and the rocket remains traveling at a constant velocity for 5 more seconds. That is constant velocity time.

So if you add up all the times of travel you know the total travel time until crashing.

If you knew the acceleration time you could have used that equation to find out that the rocket did indeed accelerate for a distance of 15 meters. Shucks, I forgot to give you the time, I gave you the location that it stopped accelerating instead. I hate it when that happens! So you know the acceleration rate, the initial velocity, and distance of acceleration.

If you would have bothered to understand the equations I posted (20 of them) in that pic you could have used one of the equations to find the answer you are looking for. Are you smart enough to answer this problem?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top