Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (don't be silly)

On 17 Sep, 23:56, Pulse <feralpu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spintronic wrote:
Hopefully this post will get through.

On 17 Sep, 18:55, Pulse <feralpu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
s...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Your question has no meaning relative to the discussion.
You may as well say;
"there is no field or no accelleration, what is the colour blue"?
SR has no place here.
If by SR you mean Special Relativity, then yes, it's very relevant. The
Special Theory of Relativity describes certain properties of objects at
high constant speed *regardless* of how that speed is achieved. Its
calculations should be taken into account in any situation where such
speeds are discussed (say, when a rocket expels half of its mass as high
energy photons in a single direction). You repeatedly fail to do so, and
that is why we are having this discussion.

But since you asked;
It's mass is 1.6726231*10^-27Kg when travelling at 0.8C
Incorrect. That is its mass at rest,

Yes, Like I said It's mass.

as I already stated. Once again you
have ignored the relativistic effects of speed alone.

No I didn't.

It's energy is 2.50546446*10^-10j
I didn't ask for energy.

You interrupted and missed where it was leading.

I asked for momentum. Repeatedly. Between mass
and momentum, momentum is the more important value, and so it is the one
I'm really concerned about.

Both important. None more than the other.

And if you want to do something *SILLY* and divide that energty by C^2
you have a useless quantity of 2.78770517*10^-27 ??????
Now, here are the mass's in respective fields.
to get your proton upto 0.8C using a larger that nanoscxale radius requires
some impossible field's like;
******************************************
moving away from 10^30 protons 4.6 meters away gives a mass of
1.6726231*10^-27 *Rest*
2.78770517*10^-27 *Relativistic* (Useless term)
***************************************************
moving toward 10^30 electrons 4.6 meters away gives a mass of
1.00357386*10^-27Kg  *Rest*
1.6726231*10^-27Kg   *Relativistic* (Useless term)
Again, there is no reason to presume that the proton has accelerated at
all.

There is in this thread.

This is a thought experiment *independent* of your whole
gravitational field discussion. You could say that it has always been
traveling at 0.8 c. (This is no more ridiculous than saying that a 1 kg
mass falls from infinity.) Alternately, you could say that an observer
has accelerated up to 0.8 c and is measuring the proton as he flies
past. From the observer's point of view, he is at rest, and the proton
is moving at 0.8 c.

Yes.

Your 'relativistic' masses have absolutely no meaning.

If you mean "relativistic mass" I agree, it's a useless term I try to
avoid.

If you mean "variable mass theory" then it has plenty of uses.

Like, solving the Singularity & Dark Energy problems, explaining
particle annhilation,
and a certain "fast multiplication" algorithym.

Do you have no concept of the Special Theory of Relativity?

Sure, what would you like to know?

You seem to keep trying to
jump the subject back to (your incorrect interpretation of) the General
Theory of Relativity.

Of course I am, that's the whole purpose of this thread.

Could you assume for the sake of argument that I began an entirely new
thread so that you can answer the questions as I asked them? Seriously,
I asked two very simple questions, and you have strung this out through
four responses while avoiding to answer them.


And I answerd 4 times.



What is the mass of a proton traveling at 0.8 c?


Depending on how it got upto speed it's either

1.6726231*10^-27Kg. Rest
&
2.78770517*10^-27 *Relativistic* (Useless term)

or

1.00357386*10^-27Kg
&
1.6726231*10^-27Kg. *Relativistic* (Useless term)

What is the momentum of a proton traveling at 0.8 c?

Either

6.68586388*10^-19Kg/m/s

Or

4.01151832*10^-19 Kg/m/s

Again depending upon how it got upto speed.







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Photon, Momentum, Mass
    ... say the same laws of physics apply in all inertial frames of referenec (ie ... "Waldron developed a ballistic theory of light on his own before learning that Walter Ritz had already done it at about the time that Einstein developed his 'Special Relativity'. ... The idea of light separating from the source at different speeds in different FoR is what causes Doppler shift in SR. ... He writes "If a body takes up an amount of energy E then its inertial mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory
    ... With the corrected mass law as proposed by Lorentz ... > need for different speeds and even if my speculation is wide of the mark ... Relativity works - but no one has tried the alternative to ... Indeed the kind of ether that some proposed in defiance of Newton was again ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (dont be silly)
    ... speeds are discussed (say, when a rocket expels half of its mass as high ... there is no reason to presume that the proton has accelerated at ... I gave you two examples whereby you could ignore acceleration. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (dont be silly)
    ... speeds are discussed (say, when a rocket expels half of its mass as high ... there is no reason to presume that the proton has accelerated at ... you once again assumed acceleration was involved when I specifically asked you to ignore acceleration. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do evolutionists have the answers? (dont be silly)
    ... If by SR you mean Special Relativity, then yes, it's very relevant. ... speeds are discussed (say, when a rocket expels half of its mass as high ... there is no reason to presume that the proton has accelerated at ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading