An example is the falling stone. When arrived on a neutron star way below the circling spaceship, with exactly unit redshift for simplicity, the stone has twice the mass-energy down there since the acquired kinetic energy equals its mass.
But a stone added to a neutron star only adds the mass-energy of a stone, not twice that much as we just calculated.
Where is the hidden error? It resides in the dogmatic assumption that rest mass were constant. It is halved here, so that the equal kinetic energy added to it yields again the stone's external mass energy as necessary as we saw.
But no one believes that conclusion -- right? This is because the whole system of thought teaches otherwise and is consistent so far. Hence the whole consistency believed-in so far needs to be replaced as a whole?
Or did I make a mistake somewhere? It would be great if a reader could help either me or the scientific community as a whole. Thank you.
November 7, 2017
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Teaching