Re: definition of a clock in relativity theory

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:44:34 GMT

"Gauge" <gauge5@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7203033.0409270610.317a5f61@posting.google.com...
| ande452@attglobal.net wrote in message
news:<414D1F98.7E40@attglobal.net>...
| > Androcles wrote:
| > >
| > > "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
| > > news:4u2kk0pmfbvpem0d0lvi5810tff5itf3hv@4ax.com...
| > >
| > > | Which, when translated, means "light has mass like anything else...
but by
| > god,
| > > | we DHRs will never admit to the fact"!
| > >
| > > Mass is E/c^2.
| > > Light has E/c^2 like anything else?
| > > That's a little circular, isn't it?
| >
| > You're quoting something that has been discredited
| > for years.
|
| That's incorrect. Only igorant people think that its been discredited.
| That is simply a lie. Its absolutely 100% wrong to claim that its
| "discredited." It follows directly from definition and that definition
| is found in many physics journals and GR/SR texts books as well as
| many online lecture notes from university sites and from nearly all
| particle accelerator labs online sites.
|
| > E = M*c^2 where M is the "relativistic mass"
| >
| > Anyone with ANY knowledge of relativity knows that
| >
| > E = sqrt((p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2)
| >
| > where m is the invariant mass.
|
| He's not wrong. You've chosen to interpret his use of the word "mass"
| so that it fits your personal opinion of what the term means.
|
| > E = p*c for a photon. What does that make m?
| >
| > Why would you use M, since it is equivalent to E?
|
| There are many reasons for doing so. For one reason is that it can be
| argued that since E can be replaced by M then there is no need for E.
| In some cases E/c^2 does not equal p/v so in those cases the
| substitution can't be made. E.g. a rod which is moving parallel to its
| length and is under stress (forces of equal magnitude applied to both
| sides) is a perfect example. m (i.e. relativistic mass) is a conserved
| quantity and is thus an imporant quantity. In fact it can be shown to
| be conservative without involking the principle of energy conservation
| so there is rarely a need to use E in special relativity.
|
| m is also the time component of 4-momentum. In fact its a better
| quantity to refer to the time component since its a perfect match for
| that name. In fact several physicists define it as such (e.g. Rindler,
| Jammer).
|
| When, in GR, one "derives" Einstein's equations then it is quite
| common to start with Poisson's equation del^2 Phi = 4*pi*G*rho. One
| then takes this and requires that mass be the source of gravity. This
| refers NOT to rest mass but to relativistic mass. From this ostulate
| one can then take the energy-momentum tensor as the mathematical
| quantity to call the source of gravity. One need only look in
| "Gravitation," Misner, Thorne and Wheeler to see an example of well
| known relativists using it. They don't call it "relativistic mass"
| they simply call it mass. They then state that the M in
|
| u*T*u = M
|
| is the source of gravity where u is the 4-velocity of the observer.
| They also use E = mc^2 (again - m = 'relativistic mass') in their
| proof that the energy-momentum tensor is symetric. Same in modern
| cosmology texts. E.g. "Cosmological Physics," John A. Pea*** is one
| that comes to mind. When people like you make these claims you're
| confusing the people trying to learn the subject and are giving them
| false impressions about what is in common use in physics today. Even
| when numerous examples were given to you which contradict this claim
| you and your buddies keep making you pretend that it doesn't exist
| just so that you don't have to admit your error. Proof
|
| http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/relativistic_mass.htm
|
| You need to stop whining about this. You know what people mean when
| they say that a photon has mass. You're just being argumentative.
|
| Pmb
Proof?
Trying to learn the subject?
Obviously Anderson is an idiot, but let's see if you can handle proof
and try to learn the subject, Brown.

              The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.

For quotations following, reference:
 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
 ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
  tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
  xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
 "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)

Androcles.

Quantcast