Re: Calculating v[t], x[t], and t'[t] for an constant accelerated object.
- From: "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:28:28 -0400
"*** rD" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1118252846.6726.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Repost as previous seems to have got lost
> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1118130196.430100.67420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | <<
> | I am currently studying AE's EoMB (SR)? papers to try and find the
> | justification
> | for relativistic velocity correction from an energy pov.
> | >>
> |
> | A goalie repeatedly fires a rifle at a hocky puck to accelerate it.
> | When the pucks velocity equals the rifles muzzle velocity,
> | the process is incapabable of further accelerating the puck.
> |
>
> Yes but if he stands on the puck his potential velocity is infinity or
> untill he runs out of bullits.
Indeed. A rifle has to push the entire universe backward.
A rocket only needs to push a bit of exhaust gas backward.
>
>
> | If the goalie skate after the puck, still firing, he can add
> | his velocity wrt the ice to the muzzle velocity and accelerate
> | the puck a bit more.
> |
> | Now... if you accept that the puck's velocity was asymtotically
> | aproaching the muzzle velocity because it was getting heavier,
>
> No I dont, it was just a reducing velocity differential that was reducing
> the acceleration
No... it is because the rifle doesn't have to push the universe back
quite so far. :o)
>
> | then you must explain how pucks loose weight when chased
> | by goalies. ;-)
>
> I don't think or think I need to explain why pucks loose weight ? except
> under the condition of the goalie standing on the puck firing.
OK Fair enuff! :-)
>
> |
> | << So now, if we still want to maintain some meaning for relativistic
> | mass, then we'll have to realise that it has a directional
> | dependence--as if the object somehow has more mass in the direction of
> | its motion, than it has sideways. Evidently the idea of relativistic
> | mass is becoming a little more complicated than at first we might have
> | hoped! And this is another reason why, in the end, it's so much easier
> | to just take the mass to be the invariant quantity m, and to put any
> | directional information into a separate, matrix, factor. >>
> | http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
> |
> Ah, reletivistic mass, have not read your link yet but I will.
>
> Mass is an energy property of a multi dimensional structure. A structure can
> also contain energy in a single axial form, you cant just add them together
> as if they were the same thing as to transform one energy state to the other
> needs considerable amount of energy.
I learned a new term today:
*Word salad*
I'm not deciphering any more of your Star Wars sripts 'till ya get clean on
these metaphysical clocks fast-moving slow-aging pet rocks. ;-)
If you can't explain it in 3 + 1 D then it is only in your mind.
Sue...
>
>
>
> | Sue...
> |
>
>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- Next by Date: Re: johnreed take 14 - 2005
- Previous by thread: Re: Calculating v[t], x[t], and t'[t] for an constant accelerated object.
- Next by thread: Re: Calculating v[t], x[t], and t'[t] for an constant accelerated object.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
