Re: Energy conservation in moving frames
- From: Henning Makholm <henning@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 23:48:35 +0100
Scripsit Timo Nieminen <uqtniemi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
It also means that, as measured from the _accelerating_ frame of your
shaceship, the energy of each already emitted pulse keeps getting less
and less as the ship accelerates; this looks like a nice simple
thought-demonstration that energy is _not_ conserved in accelerating
reference frames.
Simple? I would think it simpler to just take a standard-issue
accelerating rocketship and let a massive object drop to the floor. If
you release it from velocity zero (with respect to the accelerating
frame), its kinetic energy starts increasing all by itself, so energy
conservation is broken. This does not presuppose any relation between
the wavelength and energy contents of light.
(We can invent a potential to explain away the energy increase, but
that works only until we _change_ the acceleration of our rocketship,
at which point the potential energies of all objects would jump
wildly, definitely violating energy conservation again).
--
Henning Makholm "Also, the letters are printed. That makes the task
of identifying the handwriting much more difficult."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Energy conservation in moving frames
- From: Timo Nieminen
- Re: Energy conservation in moving frames
- References:
- Energy conservation in moving frames
- From: robert . w . adams
- Re: Energy conservation in moving frames
- From: Timo Nieminen
- Energy conservation in moving frames
- Prev by Date: Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- Next by Date: Re: Euclids postulates and non-Euclidean geometry
- Previous by thread: Re: Energy conservation in moving frames
- Next by thread: Re: Energy conservation in moving frames
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
