Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
When you are in a rocket in space and you turn on the thrust, are you increasing velocity or decreasing velocity?
The paper could be made into a fairly decent chapter in freshman physics, just by scrapping the petty cynicism and the orphaned conclusion (there was none)."Relativistic mass" is pretty much an archaic concept, which does more to add confusion to lay oriented discussions than any enlightenment.
Mass is invariant as you have been told, several times now. What was once described as relativistic mass, is an object's frame dependent momentum.
Try working your way through, The Concept of Mass..., by Lev Okun
When you are in a rocket in space and you turn on the thrust, are you increasing velocity or decreasing velocity?
But in reality, since you don't know your absolute velocity then you have no way of knowing the initial or final velocity. You also don't know which direction of travel you are traveling, so you have no way of knowing if your velocity is increasing or decreasing when you accelerate.
You obviously mean "relative to its last position". Without this essential fact (or some other unstated fact), the question is ambiguous.
That's why we always begin with an inertial reference frame. Then you know both the magnitude and direction of everything that happens next, as measured relative to the origin of the frame.
Can person be within an inertial reference frame? If the answer to that is yes is that person able to move about? (Like walk from one end of the ship to the other). Is the person able to perform physics experiments to prove all laws of physic are the same in all frames?That's why we always begin with an inertial reference frame. Then you know both the magnitude and direction of everything that happens next, as measured relative to the origin of the frame.
You seem a little confused. To be more precise than your word salad, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. If the initial velocity is 100 m/s and one second later the final velocity is 125 m/s then the rate of change of velocity (acceleration) for that 1 second was 25 m/s^2. But in reality, since you don't know your absolute velocity then you have no way of knowing the initial or final velocity. You also don't know which direction of travel you are traveling, so you have no way of knowing if your velocity is increasing or decreasing when you accelerate.
That paper is bull, it doesn't even have the equation for relativistic mass in it, and right now I don't see a link that has the equation that I was talking about. I have seen it in first year physics text. Mass is said to be directly associated with velocity.
Can anyone put me right on this please?Can person be within an inertial reference frame? If the answer to that is yes is that person able to move about? (Like walk from one end of the ship to the other). Is the person able to perform physics experiments to prove all laws of physic are the same in all frames?
Can person be within an inertial reference frame? If the answer to that is yes is that person able to move about? (Like walk from one end of the ship to the other). Is the person able to perform physics experiments to prove all laws of physic are the same in all frames?
There is no chance involved, if that's what you mean. An inertial reference frame is a vantage point. That makes it deterministic. (Having a vantage point doesn't involve a coin toss.)Only if you get lucky.
The word you are looking for is "illusion", not "lie". I haven't yet figured out what word you mean when you say "absolute". You are using it to mean "inertial reference frame", which is relative. But "absolute" universally means "universal", which means "applicable to all". There is no single point in the universe "applicable to all".The absolute frame does not lie, and if you are in contradiction with the absolute frame then you are wrong!
A better way to say that is that it's impossible to exist outside of an inertial reference frame. Further there are countless reference frames inside each other.Can person be within an inertial reference frame?
Sitting on the ship makes all observations made by the navigator equally applicable to you. Walking around makes her observations relative to the ship, and you would have to add your own velocity vector relative to the ship to stay in agreement with the navigator.If the answer to that is yes is that person able to move about? (Like walk from one end of the ship to the other).
Given infinite time and resources, yes. What sort of things would want to prove?Is the person able to perform physics experiments to prove all laws of physic are the same in all frames?
If you're using radar, then you get your acceleration relative to some other reference frame, depending on where you point it. If you're using an inertial navigation system, it measures relative to the place you were when you zeroed it, plus some compass heading, such as true north. You seem to be referring to your own inertial reference frame when you say "absolute" so I suspect this is nothing more than a question of semantics.Motor Daddy said:How else would you measure a change in velocity?You obviously mean "relative to its last position". Without this essential fact (or some other unstated fact), the question is ambiguous.
There is no chance involved, if that's what you mean. An inertial reference frame is a vantage point. That makes it deterministic. (Having a vantage point doesn't involve a coin toss.)
The word you are looking for is "illusion", not "lie". I haven't yet figured out what word you mean when you say "absolute". You are using it to mean "inertial reference frame", which is relative. But "absolute" universally means "universal", which means "applicable to all". There is no single point in the universe "applicable to all".
Every single point in space is an absolute point. Listen to what I'm telling you. Space is infinite volume. That volume is comprised of an infinite amount of points. Those points can't move because they are not objects, they are immobile points in an infinite sea of immobile points. Objects are made of matter, and they have the capability to either reside at the location of one of those points, or they can travel away from that point. If they travel away from that point that is an absolute distance that they are traveling in the absolute frame of infinite immobile points. All objects travel relative to the absolute frame at the same time. Any two objects also has a relative velocity to each other.
If a light is emitted from an immobile point at t=0, and light always travels at the same speed in a vacuum, and the meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in 1/299792458 of a second, then light is defining distance in the absolute frame compared to the immobile point that it was emitted from. I don't care what you say, because by definition I am 100% correct, and you are not.So what. You can never now your absolute velocity. You cannot know how you are moving to what you are calling an 'absolute point'. You have put forth the idea that you can know an absolute point in space because you say 'a light sphere expands from an absolute point in space irrespective of the inertial frame', but that belief is demonstrably false.
Origin, you make statements about what science is or knows or can be demonstrated but rarely accompany your posts with any science. For the benefit of us less educated and informed viewers, post a link to the science that shows Motor Daddy's belief to be demonstrably false, just so we are all on the same page.So what. You can never now your absolute velocity. You cannot know how you are moving to what you are calling an 'absolute point'. You have put forth the idea that you can know an absolute point in space because you say 'a light sphere expands from an absolute point in space irrespective of the inertial frame', but that belief is demonstrably false.
If a light is emitted from an immobile point at t=0, and light always travels at the same speed in a vacuum, and the meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in 1/299792458 of a second, then light is defining distance in the absolute frame compared to the immobile point that it was emitted from. I don't care what you say, because by definition I am 100% correct, and you are not.