Re: relativity? paradox?
- From: "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:38:03 GMT
"Ulala" <zhulien..REMOVETHIS..@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:438d8000$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi,
>
> I have been thinking after reading the Physics FAQ the following.
>
> I guess there is so much to swallow and I can never know everything, so I
> would like to toss in a few questions not specifically with the hope of a
> straight answer, but moreso a reference to which theories to read up on
> (not really interested in forumulas or proving the theory though).
>
>
> If I take an object (eg: myself). I am the observer and I have a mass
> (assume whichever interpretation of mass you like). I stand still (from
> my observation) but I am moving at a high velocity because I am on Earth
> which is moving at high speed around it's orbit. The earth is in our
> solar system which is also moving around.
First mistake - motion is not absolute. The earth is not 'moving' any more
than a car stationary at a stop sign 'moves'. All motion is relative to a
coordinate system and that coordinate system is arbitrary.
> Our galaxy is moving around. Perhaps there are clusters of galaxies that
> move around. Relative to myself I am still, relative to Earth I am still.
> My mass in relation to Earth can be calculated, but is this my true mass
> considering all the moving around that's going on?
By definition rest mass is the mass measured at rest relative to an inertial
coordinate system and it is invariant. You can't really argue with a
definition and ask questions like is it the real mass - such questions are
pretty pointless.
> Now, given the unknown levels of components of motion (could it be
> infinate?) it would suggest that it isn't possibly infinate because I
> would be approaching the speed of light just by standing still (observing
> myself). Given a finate known number of components of motion, perhaps a
> true actual velocity could be calculated and therefore my true mass also?
>
> Another way of thinking about this could be if I had a train moving
> forward at 100km/h on Earth, on it there was a smaller train travelling at
> 100km/h (ie: it is 200km/h if Earth is the observer), on this smaller
> train was another smaller train travelling at 100km/h, how many trains
> upon would we need to travel at the speed of light? Given that Earth is
> an observer of the first train, but the Earth itself is in a multi-leveled
> state of motion.
Multi-leveled state of motion?????????????. Any object can make virtually
any motion you like by specifying the appropriate coordinate system which is
one reason relativity concerns itself with quantities that are the same
regardless of coordinate system - that is the importance of the principle of
general covariance - nature should not depend on the coordinate system
chosen.
> Would such a calculation become paradoxical as it is supposedly impossible
> to move at the speed of light, so regardless of how many trains upon
> trains there are, we would get to a point that the bottom train could just
> not move because the top train would approach the speed of light if it
> did?
I can't follow your reasoning here.
Thanks
Bill.
>
> Regards.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: relativity? paradox?
- From: Ulala
- Re: relativity? paradox?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is the black hole's spin holding it up?
- Next by Date: Every now and then...
- Previous by thread: Re: relativity? paradox?
- Next by thread: Re: relativity? paradox?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
