Re: Dumb Relativity Question
From: Jim Greenfield (jgreen_at_seol.net.au)
Date: 02/15/05
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Timo Nieminen: "Re: Inertial-dampening systems"
- In reply to: Ben Rudiak-Gould: "Re: Dumb Relativity Question"
- Next in thread: tj Frazir: "Re: Dumb Relativity Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Feb 2005 16:46:53 -0800
Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276deleteme@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<cuqb19$okh$2@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
> Jesse Mazer wrote:
> > Either way, although
> > it's true that rest mass can increase when one type of particle is
> > converted to another during a collision, I think the original post
> > wasn't suggesting anything like this, he was just suggesting a collision
> > between two classical objects.
>
> There's no creation or annihilation of particles in reverse alpha decay. I
> just don't think it'll work to say "the rest mass of the sum is the sum of
> the rest masses, with the following exceptions". Every case that I can think
> of is on the list of exceptions. In an inelastic collision of classical
> objects, the objects will always heat up. It's just the way rest mass works.
> It doesn't add.
>
> -- Ben
Think smaller!
The many subatomic particles thus far "identified" may themselves be
made up
of (currently/forever) undetectable particles, which may, by
gravitational or other effect, be capable of a large range of
velocities.
eg photons slowed to stop by strong gravity may be able to recombine
in situations with other particles, to build back up to hydrogen.
The energy/matter cycle need NOT have a "beginning" (Big Bang)- just
an infinite
cyclic nature.
Jim G
c'=c+v
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Timo Nieminen: "Re: Inertial-dampening systems"
- In reply to: Ben Rudiak-Gould: "Re: Dumb Relativity Question"
- Next in thread: tj Frazir: "Re: Dumb Relativity Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|