Re: New version of a relativity FAQ

Hi Harald

On Jun 27, 3:44 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:78826dec-2dbd-4738-ae8d-75e42fc5e3c9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Hi Harald.
I was up until dawn writing software to study
elliptical orbits, it's addictive for me, so
I'm a bit zonked, but in a good way.

On Jun 25, 4:50 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:033d6c0e-7688-4216-905e-806753059417@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The problem with the arguments in this thread
regarding mass definitions is they are based
on SR + Newton, i.e. 1915, as Mr. Koks appears
to be, which are obsolete from the start.

Not clear what you mean. I was taught physics many decades later (in the
1980's), and most examples used relativistic mass as used in the field of
particle physics. Obviously it worked very well and it wasn't obsolete at
all. ;-)

True, provided one understands how to use
the formula in particle physics, as here,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_PlancksConstant.pdf

As I pointed out, the same mass definitions
needs to work for GR, Energy, QT and EM.
Actually that is rather straightforward using
the post 1983 definition of the meter,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Mass-Definition.pdf
I think Robert's mentioned counting substance
as a mass definition, well that's "not even
wrong", as that just shifts the problem to
Mass = number x (a smaller mass)...duh...
1 Kg = 1000 gms, and is equivalent to saying
1 gm = (big number)*(mass of a Si atom), that
may be an improvement, but it does not mean
anything, because it does not relate to our
definition of time, so next thing is defining
the mass of a Si atom, so that's circles back
to the original problem.

I'd like to also clarify,
Rest mass =/= invariant mass,
in fact
invariant mass = relativistic mass.

Oh yes indeed! But you would likely need to elaborate - it's only true
one-way.

Let mass_0 = rest mass in FoR K and
mass'_0 = rest mass in FoR K'
then the invariant is,

mass_0/sqrt(1-v^2)= mass'_0/sqrt(1-v'^2),


"... I don't think that that is what people mean with "invariant
mass"..."

"mean <=> people" oh well...

Let CS's K and K' have relative speed 0.8c.
Arbituarily choose K to be a rest, therefore
gamma=1 and gamma' = 10/6 then let

mass_0 = 100 gm = 100 gm' * 10/6

or, restated, a rest mass of 600 gm
measured relatively to K, is measured to
be 1000 gm' relatively to K' who is moving
at 0.8c relative to K, so that

600 gm = 1000 gm'

such that the 600 gm in K has an inertia
(due to kinetic energy) of 1000 gm' in K'
when K' uses his gm'.

which is true in ALL relating FoR's, and
is what people usually call relativistic
mass.

A straightforward example is temperature increase.

I'll work temperature increase, but that
involves the addition of quantized energy
in order to increment the temperature or
if you choose to define temperature in terms
of kinetic energy then the relation of
accelerating FoR's to change the relative
kinetic energy...either is fine with me.

With temperature increase the kinetic energies of the molecules inside a
body "in rest" increase, so that also the relativistic masses of those
molecules increase as well as the total mass - no matter if you call the
total mass "rest mass", "invariant mass" or "relativistic mass". But
apparently you did NOT mean that.

You're adding energy/time and therefore inertia
into a box, and as it heats up it gets heavier.
Energy/time is power, and your scenerio has a
constant power input, so that goes over to the
Unified Quantum Gravitational Field Theory here,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_UFT.pdf
because power is quantized, (Watts to photons).
Check out the marshmellow gedanken in that link.
(Hi & Lois are my favorites).

You'll see an incremental change in the metric
g00, denoted Dg00 = - DW00 where W00 is power.

You can test that by shooting a ballistic
projectile upward. As it increases in altitude
the g00 =>1 from g00<1, but the projectile
deaccelerates and thus loses power, (W00), as
g00 increases.

Thanks Harald.
I'll stress the need to keep Plancks's "h"
(ergs*seconds) invariant and two, be able
to insure EM is in accord with your chosen
definition of energy, and three make it
Generally Covariant, that's what I figure,
but I'm a physics hoar, and will do anything
to get the solution.
Ken S. Tucker

Thanks for the warning! ;-)
Harald

LOL, in this case, Modern SpaceTime really
seems to work, but I'm open to suggestions.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... modeled also by a high hierarchy HIS. ... >> body set where we can compute its center of mass. ... >> the only energy a rest body could have is potential one. ... I consider rest mass as kinetic energy: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... >> the body set of a higher hierarchy HIS. ... with its center of mass considered always at rest. ... >> and adding all of them you obtain the total energy of the system. ... >> Einstein) rest mass measures potential energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • What its like to Travel on a Light Beam
    ... Galilean limit of gauge theories, ... (mass), then it is necessary to include an 11th generator into the ... were Poincare' invariant; that energy and matter are fully ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Is the mass of a free falling body increasing?
    ... kind of stored kinetic energy. ... > photon with zero rest mass (pure kinetic energy with only dynamic ... "relativity" is irrelevant for determining the rest mass. ... implied to include gravitation at that point, as it was also not included in ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
Loading