Re: Eric Gisse doesn't know the basics of Relativity

On Aug 6, 2:57 pm, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Aug 5, 9:16 am, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@xxxxxx> wrote:
gu...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 5, 11:12 am, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@xxxxxx> wrote:

Temperature is not invariant. It transforms as

T' = T * (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

Come on. Rest Mass is a Lorentz invariant scalar.

Never heard of invariant mass, M' = gamma M.

M remains invariant.

I thought we were talking about temperature. What has mass got
to do with it?

Nothing. He seems to believe that the kludge known as "relativistic
mass" somehow invalidates my argument.

This has been going on since April. He didn't understand then, and
doesn't understand now as evidenced by his latest little temper
tantrum. Every so often he has to spam this newsgroup with about 20
posts saying how stupid I am and whatever.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8ec41d88e75...

That is the argument for why temperature transforms as such.

I'm not so sure, anymore. Based on a quick search of arXiv, this

becus guskz is right,

otherwise you would had seen gosse drinking
frozen coffee in his spacesheep

seems to be an unsettled area of physics, with some saying

T' = T * (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2),

some saying

T' = T / (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2),

and some saying

T' = T.

See arXiv:gr-qc/9505045, arXiv:physics/0506214, and
arXiv:physics/9610016, for instance.

That something so seemingly basic is still unsettled after 100
years suggests to me that there is something wrong with the
question. I suspect, but cannot prove, that T does not transform
at all (which is different from saying T' = T). I further
suspect that this is because a system in equilibrium in one frame
is not in equilibrium in another.

Consider an ideal gas in a box at equilibrium in its rest frame.
The molecules will have the usual speed distribution, which, if
I recall correctly, is symmetric with respect to direction.
However, the speed distribution will not be symmetric as seen in
a frame in which the box is moving, because the velocity addition
equation introduces a bias. So the gas will not be seen to be
equilibrium in the other frame, and it won't have a temperature.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in another post, my thermal physics
is so rusty that it will take more than a few cans of WS-40 to
get it working again, so I may be completely wrong.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@xxxxxx -- AB2SB


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Eric Gisse doesnt know the basics of Relativity
    ... Rest Mass is a Lorentz invariant scalar. ... Based on a quick search of arXiv, this seems to be an unsettled area of physics, with some saying ... I further suspect that this is because a system in equilibrium in one frame is not in equilibrium in another. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
    ... and only far from equilibrium globally. ... > Like Inman Harvey said, ... environment - it minimizes in some environments and maximizes ... I am not even sure whether you and I are saying different things. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: How to delete from palette
    ... In fact I initially stored on the Delphi "template" palette a frame with the ... Delphi kept saying that another component existed with the same name... ...
    (comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc)
  • Re: A challenge to non-SRians
    ... | contraction and then went on to show that SR (which of course assumes ... He quoted Einstein as saying ... | crossed a smaller distance, D-eps, in the base frame. ... | diagram shows the prime frame contracted, which is what is observed by the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
    ... I need to know whether the equations are telling us where the particles ... Is this saying that for frame of reference 2, ... would an observer in frame 1 see it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)