Re: Y.O.O the "self proclaimed GR expert". (ABSOLUTELY no help)

On Sep 9, 4:40 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 9 Sep, 08:35, Klaus Hellnick <khelln...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Devils Advocaat wrote:
On 8 Sep, 17:58, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 8, 5:52 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 8 Sep, 13:52, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 8, 12:21 pm, Wombat <tri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 Sep, 11:12, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 Sep, 09:06, Wombat <tri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 Sep, 09:27, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7 Sep, 17:11, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 7, 8:19 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5 Sep, 16:03, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 5, 4:50 am, Boikat <boi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 4, 3:36 pm, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Sep 4, 8:09 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
<snip>
which clearly depends on the observer's velocity. See, for example,
chapter 2 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
Good job this isn't "special" relativity then, isn't it?
Even if it were you would still be wrongt.
Your equation assumes an *EXTERNAL* force.
A particle accellerated by it's own energy will follow my reasoning.
Unless you're talking spaceships, are you channeling nando and his
insane idea that "objects" can decide, on their own, to move around?
Are you and nando smoking the same brand of crack?
Boikat
No dimwit.
I am saying that the 4 vector equations describing the *increase* in
energy of a particle that gains momentum,
carlip was describing, *assume* an external force.
A particle accellerated by its own energy, (decay, electromagnetic,
gravitational....)
will *ALWAYS* DECREASE in mass, and will *NEVER* increase.
Now. be a good boy. And perform this simple thought experiment.
What is the *maximum* velocity of a spacecraft/particle accellerated
by its own energy?
The spacecraft/particle has finite mass.
So the energy available is also finite.
Therefore the maximum velocity is finite.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If By *finite* you mean <C.
No, the rocket actuially reaches C.
Explain how with a finite amount of energy from a body that is
decreasing in mass can acheive a velocity equal to that of the speed
of light.
Surely a body that is accelerating is gaining mass, not losing it?
Wombat
Spinny says "What is the *maximum* velocity of a spacecraft/particle
accellerated by its own energy?"
My assumption therefore is that the body is converting its own mass
into energy.
If it is then the mass will decrease.
So we are engaged in an intellectual exercise with no relation to
reality?
Wombat- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's as much to do with GR as a spaceship-elevator.
You'r just too stoopid to know the diff.
Our mass (moving under it's own PE) cannot *ACCELLERATE* at all,
without reducing it's own "Rest Mass".
And by "Rest Mass", I do not mean the mass leftover, after we use
fuel.
I mean the "Rest Mass" *OF* the *Energy* leftover as we use fuel.
This "Rest Mass", reaches 0, and yet still has 0.5KgC^2 of energy.
How can something have zero mass and still have the energy of a body
with a mass of 0.5 kgs?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How can a photon carry away the energy of an electrons mass in
particle annhilation?

If I read you right you are referring here to quantum field theoretic
process of particle–antiparticle annihilation.
BTW, this is the same process.

No it isn't.

And you still haven't managed to explain how zero mass can possess the
energy of a body weigh 0.5 kgs.

I am fairly certain that matter can not be converted to antimatter.

I never said it could. :)

Well there is the case of positron decay...

In this case a Proton is converted to a Neutron, Positron and a
neutrino.

But this is the only process I'm aware of.

Stuart

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... modeled also by a high hierarchy HIS. ... >> body set where we can compute its center of mass. ... >> the only energy a rest body could have is potential one. ... I consider rest mass as kinetic energy: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... >> the body set of a higher hierarchy HIS. ... with its center of mass considered always at rest. ... >> and adding all of them you obtain the total energy of the system. ... >> Einstein) rest mass measures potential energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the mass of a free falling body increasing?
    ... kind of stored kinetic energy. ... > photon with zero rest mass (pure kinetic energy with only dynamic ... "relativity" is irrelevant for determining the rest mass. ... implied to include gravitation at that point, as it was also not included in ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics)