So you can't even answer the question. Until you can answer simple questions about math, there's no point in talking to you about kinematics in No Gravity World.
Relativistic Mass ?
- Thread starter Lakon
- Start date
So you can't even answer the question. Until you can answer simple questions about math, there's no point in talking to you about kinematics in No Gravity World.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I just answered your question. Don't confuse me not telling you what you want to hear with "I didn't answer your question."
Cool! Was the answer yes or no?
I notice the same thing. It is very telling !
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Cool. Then distance = 0 when acceleration = 0. Thus there is no displacement without acceleration, per that simple equation, using very simple math.
Now, back to relativistic mass . . ..
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Not so fast there slick...
I just explained to you that equation tells you the absolute distance in the absolute frame that the object travels during constant acceleration. An object doesn't have to accelerate to travel a distance. You can analyze any past time period and run the numbers for that time period!
We're done here. You've admitted that Distance = 1/2AT^2; when A=0 then distance = 0. I assume you agree with that math.
No need, just look at the math. It's very, very simple.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
A little more clear:
If you have an absolute zero velocity at t=0 and accelerate at the rate of 10 m/s^2, at t=1 your velocity will be 10 m/s, and you would have traveled 5 meters under constant acceleration. If acceleration stops at t=1 and you continue to travel at 10 m/s you will be 15 meters away from the start point at t=2.
If you have an absolute zero velocity at t=0 and accelerate at the rate of 10 m/s^2, at t=1 your velocity will be 10 m/s, and you would have traveled 5 meters under constant acceleration. If acceleration stops at t=1 and you continue to travel at 10 m/s you will be 15 meters away from the start point at t=2.
It depends on the reference frame. From inside the car you sense your speed decreasing instant by instant relative to what it was each instant before. To a person sitting on the tailgate of a pickup in front of you (facing the car and, traveling at the same initial speed) your velocity increases. If it was a cop with a radar gun, he would read you increasing in speed, topping out at the truck's speedometer reading, as you pull to a stop.
Your highway in Pasadena would geolocate as Timbuktu if you were correct. The GPS handset measures the delay between pairs of satellites broadcasting their time of day message, a solution that plots a hyperbola for its position on the map; and then repeats this with a second pair of measurements to get a second hyperbola, which, intersected with the first, solves the geolocation (in brief, there's more to it). Here's the catch: the "time of day" is local to each satellite, which is subject to the combined relativistic effects of the gravity well at altitude, plus the time dilation due to orbital velocity. Therefore, in order for GPS to locate you in Pasedena, the system must subtract out the skew in the clocks of the satellites. And sinace it works, it confirms that Einstein et al were correct.
It's no longer a theory. Time and space do exhibit the properties you disbelieve in.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Bull, it's that you have a theory that matches incorrect measurements. The reason the numbers match is because a jumbo box of band-aids was used.
Prove it to yourself, layout a simple diagram such as mine and try to calculate any reality using your method. You can't do it. You can't do it because reality occurs in space, and you don't know how to measure distance and time in space properly. The reason that I am the first person in the history of the world to know my own velocity in space is because I properly measure distance and time in space .
This is useless. You are just trolling. I refuse to believe are that stupid - it is an act. Enjoy yourself...
Sure you are - and no one else can. That's why we're able to accurately send probes millions and millions of miles through space to intersect our intended target. (Sheesh, what ignorance!)
Distance = 1/2AT^2. If A is zero, what value will you choose for T to make distance = 15?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
If A=0 the equation is not used. Look at the list of equations I previously posted in that pic. There are 20 equations, 4 of each. Those 4 each are missing a different variable. Those equations are tools in a tool box. You need to use the right tool for the right job.
WHAT???? You are saying that even though that equation makes it quite clear that you can't have displacement without acceleration, this particular equation is not valid in this scenario?
Next you may find yourself reconsidering whether purely Newtonian equations are valid in a relativistic system!
Quite right! Now let's see if you can do the same for your toolkit.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
That is my tool kit. My tape measure and clock are absolutes, as defined, so I have no worries there, how about you?
(meaning relativity)
The theory belongs to Galileo, Newton, Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein, to name the main contributors. The theory of navigation, time difference of arrival and GPS belongs to host of others. These theories are put to practical use every day, and the systems that use them work. My reason for citing GPS is that most people who don't do math or science would at least be familiar with GPS, and can understand that it's not merely a hypothetical, but theory put into practice. And it works, so the theory must be right, right?
Do you believe GPS is making incorrect measurements? Or do you need this to be true in order to hang onto false beliefs disproved by GPS? How do you reconcile this reasoning with the fact that it works?
There are no numbers to match. GPS works by calculating the time delay between pulses from satellites. The difference in the time delay tells the receiver how far apart the satellites are from each other (from the receiver's point of view). The satellites also send time and position information to the receiver. Among several computations GPS does is the one for relativistic effects of the satellites due to SR and GR. That is, it accounts for the fact that the reported time is correct only in the inertial reference frame of each satellite. It's not the same time on Earth. That is, time does not tick at the same rate on Earth. GPS accounts for this, and calculates your location correctly. Without this accounting for relativity, your location would be way off.
Again: time ticks at a different rate in the sats than on Earth. GPS confirms this, and you confirm GPS each time you locate yourself correctly. Therefore, your ideas about time and space can not possibly be true.
If ever there was a need for First Aid, it lies with the ideas that are bleeding at the scene of the wreck.
The reason that GPS locates you is highly dependent upon the fact that the special and general relativity are correct. If not, then GPS would not work. Each time you map yourself on your mobile device you are confirming that relativity is correct.
No proof is needed to demonstrate your errors. It's self-evident. To be logically correct, you would need to start with some basic axioms from geometry, and do actual proofs. From that point forward you would be able to find the errors in your thinking yourself.
As for diagramming, try diagramming how GPS works, and you will quickly discover your errors about relativity.
I can't do what you are doing because it's incorrect. You can't do what GPS is doing, not only because it's correct, but because you don't grasp the basic principles.
My GPS is measuring time and space properly. Isn't yours?
All of that dream vanishes the moment you take a fix on your position using GPS. Suddenly you wake up in real space, at the corner of Hollywood and Vine, and you look down at your GPS device and it concurs.
Of course, being proper is the whole issue here, isn't it? How do you test your ideas when they are at odds with the world? What is improper about the proper location GPS gives you? You would want to explain this, or reconcile the disparity, if "proper" was your actual goal.
Therein lies the rub.