Preprint 24 Common Misconceptions of Mass and Energy in Special Relativity
End of rational discussions on SR, the sooner it is accepted, the better. You should convince yourself that the answer is correct. Why?
Yes, new entries could be added, personal style choices could be different -- but these are just fruitless, pretend facade choices. This is a meta-study of thousands of published results, with many contributors, with many informative references, as cited. So, not just the author agrees 100% with them, this is not just a personal opinion. The 24 list has also benefited from almost 10 years of public discussion, including WP and RG, and it has the 24 entries collated in that experience.
All new questions here will be read and answered when possible (we have four readers in the team) -- but, "new" questions, even if repeated, may fit in the list of already given 24 misconceptions, so look there first!
COMMENTS:
First, Einstein was right [1]. Second, to say "FIRE" in a theater is not free-speech (decision by the US Supreme Court, but may be justified-speech). However, free-speech has been a constant suggestion, [1, 2, 3], to clear the air. Could the idea that misinformation will destroy itself -- as it has inside it the elements of its own disaggregation -- work here, as seen in semantics?
But RG ToS does not currently support free-speech.
Let us stay focused -- the topic here is how to improve discussions in RG (read this question!). The discussion is going well, and free speech IS allowed here (read the question itself, not just the title!). This statement suggests the method to filter:
"Cooperation is different people, doing different things, at different times, for the same objective. Understanding that, even contrarians are cooperating. And misinformation destroys itself, sooner or later,"
which can be understood as a realization of Shannon's 10th Theorem, in online discussions such as this, creating an optimized filter. The Shannon correction channel (here provided by the participants themselves!) is used to bring the system to filter noise, as closely as desired. No need for an external correction channel, as a mythical, fair and all-knowing, moderator, the tendency observed in fora such as FB and elsewhere. The presence of an external moderator does not accelerate convergence either, but the powerful social force of the participants can be harnessed with a proper, enforced, ToS. For example, if the discussion strays off-topic -- one can't discuss history in math class.
In support of the old academic principle of freedom of speech, freedom of speech was recognized as essential, already in Greek times -- the ancient Greeks were pioneers of free-speech. Their theater, literature, and educational institutions explored the human experience, freedom of expression, and questioning of authority.
To say "FIRE" in a theater is, however, not free-speech (decision by the US Supreme Court, but may be justified-speech). One can't discuss history in math class in university. The topic here is how to improve RG discussions, perhaps using the old academic principle of freedom of speech.
For example, one can protect free-speech by delaying for at least one hour offending posts, and increase the delay in case of re-incidence. Real-time interactions will reduce, offering also a measurable metric of reputation, without added physical work for RG [1].
However, reality is observer-dependent, in QM and life. Reality also seems to support free-speech, valued since Greek times. Starting with the Heisenberg principle, observer and experiment cannot be dissociated. There is no objectivity in QM (objectivity would be observer-independent, contradicting QM) -- which expands Einstein and Minkowski, even no SR, and supports free-speech. Further, there is a coherent, abstract view one can pursue in QM. See [2, 3].
REFERENCES:
[1] Preprint The Einstein Phenomenon and "fake news"
[2] Preprint A Quantum Mechanical View of Reality or, can the Maxwell equ...
[3] Preprint 24 Common Misconceptions of Mass and Energy in Special Relativity
(Benefited from almost 10 years of public discussion, including WP and RG, with 24 entries, [3] has now become a preprint. New entries can be added, in what is a meta-study, with many contributors with many references, linked in the question itself. All new questions here will be read and answered when possible (we have four readers in the team) -- but, "new" questions, even if repeated, may fit in [3], with already given 24 misconceptions, so look in [3] first!)
Dear all,
Relativity is misinformation.
The Mainstream Media (Fake News owned by Dem's) and the monopolistic Social Networks (owned by Dem's) in the US are trying to block the Patriot websites and the Qanon related websites (True News).
True News: http://qmap.pub (try "POTUS on" and "off" at top of page)
Now that also relativity, time dilation, increasing mass, Lorentz invariance are proven to be utter nonsense, they will also try to block scientific progress on Internet.
Despite the fact that all the Universities and Mainstream Journals already block all the questioning about crooked relativity!
Panic in Universities! Panic in Mainstream Journals!
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
I don't believe challenges to SR and GR should be blocked. Challenges usually fail from deficiencies, although the research community seems to agree that SR is a special case and GR is a second order approximation that is likely to be inaccurate at the highest energies and shortest distances.
For deep space transport at high speed the limits of GR are tested. If GR is not challenged then travel to other stars will not be achieved. Extreme high speed requires space time to curve in higher order functions than second order.
Einstein truncated the higher order terms to preserve covariance in the math he was using. He acknowledged GR as a second order approximation that other researchers would quickly improve.
About 30 university groups have tried to develop the next steps beyond GR. in something called theory of everything. They don't offer much help for the high speed in deep space.
An old theory TGD matches GR predictions over the energy range and distance range we can measure, up to a very high energy and short distance, then diverges into folded space time in layers of higher order curvature, using different math to avoid truncating higher order terms. It does give help for prediction high speed transport in deep space, also the conditions under which wormholes might open.
If TGD or something like it prevails at high energy and great speed, then travel to the stars can be developed, but if GR remains unchallenged, the human race will never leave the solar system.
A lot of the challenges are annoying, but can be tolerated in hope of finding something new in science.
Agree with Jerry, allow the questioners, but give the belivers equal time. Usually when theories change it is rare to find the old version wrong in everything. Also the new theories have to be good enough to become believable, and may also be wrong.
Fortunately GR has nothing to do with the pace of space exploration; this is conditioned mainly by budget. From recent discussion I take it that original formulation may be evolving.(with dark matter, interpretation of cosmological term, etc)
Possibly the end of the middle age may have to do with the discovery of America, so may the next step have to do
with further advances in space. I believe that the discovery of hundreds of extra solar planets is changing that old silly paradigm that we are alone in the universe.
That was the motivation that led to the formation of Sci.Physics.Relativity on the old Usenet system. It worked reasonably well in removing the crackpots from the serious conversations on other physics.
The problem with a simple ban is that you exclude all the people who are not challenging the theory but are genuinely trying to learn it, or have learned some but have been misled by less easily understood textbooks and need help adjusting their view of the theory.
One of the questions facing RG, is where there is more money and less liability. RG has a mounting liability in providing free resources for crackpots, and misinformation. Doubting special relativity is similar to believing in a flat Earth. GR uses SR spacetime, and explains what we see, and is NOT contradicted by nature. Progress in both SR and GR does not come from fruitless questioning.
Another question facing RG, is how long competent researchers can tolerate the noise. There are other questions, including RG-whales being led to value controversy, instead of collaboboration. In all scenarios, RG loses continuing the present affairs, including the short lifetime of answers to cope with phantasy postings. RG has become a memorilless list, a contradiction in quality and quantity in answers.
Yes I think I see some of the younger generation looking at you tube videos instead of solid text. There is a whole mixture out there are experts in one subject, semi expert on another, and total crackpot on something else. At a cetain level of difficulty no one answers, or they keep the answer secret to publish.
Id like to know more about a gravitational wave, what it looks like, how it twists a bar and so on.
Ed Gerck
Not mixing Spanish with Latin, precession of Mercury perihelion is not being disputed, and GR describes it well enough. All the low energy tests are verified in favor of GR. The high energy range is disputed. In another thread the high energy limit is questioned.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_General_Relativity_Theory_Break_Down_At_High_Energy
Rather surprising to me were the two most popular responses that say yes GR probably does break down at high energy, meaning it becomes inaccurate in predictions. Also the comments list a lot of university research that has gone into predicting departure from GR at high energy.
Juan Weisz
Actually GR does enter into the planning for Deep Space Transport at high speed, in as much as GR extrapolates toward infinite energy prediction required in star travel. Much of my correspondence on RG is the exploration of knowledge and ideas for the high energy case.
So far there is reasonable cause to believe that space time has limitations in the high energy density range. Everything we test in research is found to have a limit. So assuming vacuum can contain infinite kinetic energy is not reasonable.
A reasonable opinion is that a moving object curves space with kinetic energy as found in the Lagrangian and Lagrangian Density, which represents kinetic energy counteracting the curvature of gravity. So the question is asked.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Kinetic_Energy_Carried_In_A_Stress_Energy_Field_Of_Space
Einstein recommended a yes answer in his Autobiographical Notes published in 1949 in the Philosopher Scientist series. Einstein asked his readers to make a modification to the field equations that puts kinetic energy in the field. He was not able to accomplish it, because CMB was not discovered until a few years after Einstein died. Kinetic field energy requires a zero velocity reference everywhere which isotropic CMB provides to satisfaction of Victor Weisskopf and PJE Peebles, but not teveryone.
GR does not admit kinetic field energy of a single object. Conventional wisdom is that two or more objects are required and only the relative kinetic energy is described, which cannot be a field energy.
Best response from RG colleagues has been a 40 year old prediction that vacuum changes from one quantum state to another when the energy density reaches a critical value. One way to think of it is the ZPE having spin angular momentum of h everywhere GR is accurate, which means most cases we can deal with, but not the extreme deep space projections.
When all the available vacuum energy states are filled with kinetic energy the Hierarchy of Planks theorem allows the spin angular momentum to increment 2h, then 3h, then 4h, and possibly 5h, but this last transformation represents the energy density of the big bang, and thermal destruction for a fast moving vehicle.
The math works out to predict spontaneous wormholes in the 4h case, which corresponds to rapid inflation of the early universe. The 3h case requires 6D space time, and the 2h case is the 5D of Kaluza and Klein plus a few others. In this progression our 4D could be a false vacuum that some researchers have proposed. If so then collapse of our vacuum could result in 3D which means time stops passing because everything is destroyed and converted to photons of light and gamma rays in the popular version, possibly leading to a new big bang. My project last year concluded that a fast moving vehicle could avoid the destruction by developing a local field of kinetic energy, passing the vehicle from our universe into the new one.
Returning to the proposal to ban RG questions on GR and SR, a lot of researchers are against it including Albert Einstein, Victor Weisskopf and PJE Peebles. Also in my brief description it should be understood that the high energy question of GR is well known among researchers, but not answered sufficiently well. The eventual answer determines the ultimate future of the human race, also there is serious research being done on the question, and theories make predictions that can eventually be tested. It doesn't mean that every researcher needs a different theory, but it does mean that theories are needed.
I am not in favor of banning this question about GR or the discussion of it.
In the past RG had a voting system where down voting was anonymous. Up voting revealed the voters names. Down voting was unpopular and was eliminated in the upgrades.
What I understand of high energy, it would make the quantum wavelength shorter, as does also a higher mass. This makes it more Classical so it should fit in fine with a classical theory such as GR in present state. Yes, when you get into energy, GR is in a sorry state.
But I would still leave to the future the limitations of space travel due to GR, Perhaps at some stage you have to take this into account as the gps system does right now. I do not think they would be stupid enough to get very close to a very large mass.
The topic I like better is fractional values of spin given by anyons, instead of some sequence of bosons, although not a priori ruled out.
Jerry Decker , Sorry (and I regret to say it), the "controversy" you mentioned is a reason to ban questioning SR and GR, if RG wants to be about science. Nothing missed, if RG indeed becomes a memorilless list (e.g., by hiding posts, and cutting them in what is shown) , as already is today, a contradiction in both quality and quantity.
For pros and cons, and the effects of persistent misinformation, see, for example:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Different_formulations_of_special_relativity_and_4D_spacetime_as_its_corpus
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_only_one_or_even_infinite_inertial_reference_frame_enough_in_special_and_general_relativity
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Different_formulations_of_special_relativity_and_4D_spacetime_as_its_corpus
https://www.researchgate.net/post/On_the_admissibility_of_scientific_doubt_and_the_irreproducibility_crisis_in_biology
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_a_spacetime_model_needed_to_understand_special_relativity_or_electromagnetism
JW: What I understand of high energy, it would make the quantum wavelength shorter, ..
That's right, and when it gets comparable to the Planck scale, any underlying quantum gravity from which GR is emergent might start showing effects. That is why there is genuine science looking at observations in this regime, for example:
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Integral_challenges_physics_beyond_Einstein
- Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the ‘Planck scale’: the minuscule 10-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10-3 m.
- However, Integral’s observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller.
- “This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories,” says Dr Laurent.
Discussions on these topics would be perfectly valid, it is the problem of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" that makes this difficult.
Discussing Quantum Mechanics, and extending the domain of GR, or limiting GR in any way, will not contradict SR, spacetime, or maths. But can be used to create a false flaw, explored in fruitless discussions of crackpots. There is a limit to scientific doubt, the limit of observation. We can extend that limit with maths, but not with just saying, e.g., "X would make Y shorter" but by using methods of proof, even if as a hypothesis.
Newton said, about gravity, "a hypothesis I do not make," and yet his law of gravitation was described and is valid until today, and was used by Einstein as a valid zeroth solution, where eigentime is used -- comoving observers do not see time dilation or length contraction. And that should not be doubted, in science, but used as a firm ground for inference, nor the very definition of comoving ignored (see references) and thereby creating a false paradox in SR.
Einstein also did not make a hypothesis on gravity, only modelled it as an extrinsic curvature of spacetime. We can use that in QM, logically. What we cannot do, unless we throw science away, is to just say (as if it would be true).
Science is not humanities, or philosophy, or click-bait. The weight of science evidence is missing for opinions, no matter who says. Quotations have no weight in science. That is how we make progress, by placing final authority on nature. That's how QM was discovered, and SR and GR. We cannot doubt QM either.
Anyone wishing to doubt QM does not belong to science. SR and GR are older, and even more verified. Electromagnetism and light itself obey QM, SR, and GR. These can be used to make progress.
Misinformation, and basing oneself on quotes, are not science's way, and could be blocked without harm to progress. Poetry was used by Persian Omar Kahyyam to convey what maths at his time coul not do. His idea of the role of intuition in maths, survived, as well as his early Algebra discoveries. Nothing is ever lost, said Omar Khayyam. Not even misinformation -- gossip is useful, and that is why it is used in communication. But not in science; if RG discussions want to be useful to science then doubting SR and GR is alike to doubting QM, vaccines, light, or saying that the Earth is flat.
I have no objections to SR and GR when used within the data ranges of confirming experiments, observations, and possibly some reasonable extrapolations with appropriate disclaimer.
Quite often SR is used incorrectly. It doesn't apply to every case or to some multiple cases at the same time. Then we see a posting that SR is wrong, usually giving conflicting results . But it turns out SR was used wrong.
GR may also be used incorrectly, but not in the same way as SR. For example lots of claims are made that travelers could pass through a rotating black hole and come out unscathed in some other place.
FLRW based on GR was problematic for a long time, entering radiation incorrectly until researchers started formulating the stress energy with Lagrangian Density as QFT also does, A great many researchers have not learned of this and others have not agreed with it.
Dark Energy arises from the mistaken addition of all energy to assist the curvature of gravity. Something unseen was needed to compensate for the difference between predictions and observations. The Lagrange Density subtracts potential energy from kinetic energy to get a smaller net curvature in agreement with observations about the movement of objects and pathways of light. When this is done correctly the Dark Energy is no longer needed, because predictions agree with observations.. Still a lot of research is done on Dark Energy and we get strong arguments from true beliebers.
Much nonsense is written about relativity, but much sense is also written, and we might not all agree on which is which.
New science is always discovered on the margins of old science. The old science is not destroyed by it, but is better understood.
GR makes no accounting for the limitations of space time, except in the case of blackholes, a type of degeneracy. Referring to the Lagrangian another degeneracy can be predicted at extreme high kinetic energy. Instead of closing another event horizon which is curved concave to the source , the Lagrangian describes a convex curvature caused by excess kinetic energy. There are some problems to over come.
First kinetic energy must be referenced to the isotropic CMB which GR predates. Then kinetic energy must be represented in the local field as Albert Einstein recommended in his Autobiographical Notes, and as QFT routinely does with Lagrangian Density. Then the limitations can be evaluated along with consequences of the limitations.
Topics of Scale Relativity, Squeezed Quantum States, and Hierarchy of Plancks enter in well enough to the research community that some Nobel Prizes have awarded and others could well be awarded.
There is a group of government agencies and other researchers who make up the Deep Space Transport Board and other groups where deep space transport technology and science is researched in our present time. My several questions and threads explore topics they are working on now.
Some of my questions are about biology how we might work and live impaired in degenerate space time, how strength of materials might change in squeezed space, unconventional energy conversions, how a fast vehicle might interact with the local vacuum and fields, the possibility that the fast vehicle might create its own wormhole, what happens if the vehicle goes too fast for the surrounding space to contain, and could the disturbed space behind a fast enough vehicle trigger collapse of our false vacuum leading to wide spread destruction of our universe and the eventual creation of a new universe. Some of the researchers are not preferring these discussions in public forum, but I feel RG is the place for them.
If RG bans the discussion it will go to a different forum.
Jerry Decker , You wrote, "Quite often SR is used incorrectly. It doesn't apply to every case or to some multiple cases at the same time." When would that be the case? SR applies to every case, every time. Even if the speed is zero. That is one of the problems here -- people doubting SR without reason.
A classical SR case of misuse is two identical twins equally accelerated in opposite directions but not aware of this, and then allowed to free fall away from each other at high speed, each concluding by observations and the time dilation of relative speed in SR that the other twin has aged differently.
Obvious for triplets when one does not travel the two travelers have aged the same, but they in ignorance have misused SR to get the wrong answer.
The combination can get as large as you like and the lack of information gets worse, but not always realized by the observers who can easily make mistakes in the calculations of SR. Then SR is not at fault. It is the users who are wrong.
For example in the first example the travelers may not be twins or even acquaintances and they may have different origins places and times, plus different accelerations that are not known to each other, but still make observations of relative speed and do calculations of SR different rates of aging which are possibly right or possibly wrong, but usually wrong when information is missing.
SR is a tool and any tool can be misused by ignorance.
Ed Gerck
Yes false for those who are knowledgeable, but still done wrong by those who are not.
Albert Einstein was questioned about relative speed and aging, how to know who aged slower when velocity is only relative. He replied that knowledge of the accelerations would be the deciding factor, knowing full well that time dilation is calculated from velocity difference, not acceleration.
SR gives correct answers when sufficient information is known at the time of calculation. A choice in SR must be made of which clock has proper time in a universe where there is no preferred reference frame.
All the observers can get the same answer for the passage of time in an event if they agree on which single clock will be declared to have proper time. This is the missing part of my examples.
The remedy I and others proposed on isotropic CMB as a zero reference for velocity helps a lot in SR to decide what is proper time and what is relative time, without which the calculations are arbitrary and answers are different from one observer to the next depending on how proper time was declared by each of them..
Jerry Decker , Thanks again. What you cited about Albert Einstein was proper 100 years ago. At RG, in 2019, no one should question that any more, but misinformation is becoming a threat to true free speach. Time to think about, suggest, but maybe another 100 years is needed. An opportunity for others, maybe?
BTW, there are no relativistic effects (e.g., time dilation or length contraction) for comoving observers at ANY speed, only for non-comoving. No need for an absolute reference frame, CMB, or otherwise.
Ed Gerck
I agree with you that much annoyance on RG comes from inappropriate declarations about SR and GR with obvious mistakes and questions that have already been answered. I don't want to be the judge of who can write and what they can say. So far RG has be the best forum I found, and with friends and colleagues also writing here in various topics.
My own unconventionality has been tolerated by some and encouraged by others, not always in agreement. In the process much was accomplished through the discussions.
A tough balance to strike, keeping out poor quality or misinformed work without stifling healthy dissent and progress. Given the number of good scientists who question various aspects of both theories, I think it would be against the spirit of science and philosophy to block altogether any questioning of it or any theory for that matter. I was reading a paper on this today, written by a scientist who'd been at one of the premier research institutes. However it might be useful to edit/block poorly formulated science of any kind on any subject, particularly for consistent, repeat offenders.
Dear all,
Relativity is misinformation.
The Mainstream Media (Fake News owned by Dem's) and the monopolistic Social Networks (owned by Dem's) in the US are trying to block the Patriot websites and the Qanon related websites (True News).
True News: http://qmap.pub (try "POTUS on" and "off" at top of page)
Now that also relativity, time dilation, increasing mass, Lorentz invariance are proven to be utter nonsense, they will also try to block scientific progress on Internet.
Despite the fact that all the Universities and Mainstream Journals already block all the questioning about crooked relativity!
Panic in Universities! Panic in Mainstream Journals!
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
No scientific study questioning shoul be blocked. That's how we get stuck with "good old" stuff.
Donot believe in everything and always believe in something.
Dr. Pankaj Tomar refers 'Einstein' Philosophy of science and consider him 'Genius' of modern history.
Dear Mohamed,
Claude Bernard is right, but he couldn't know that the relativists would even try to connect Planck's lie of an alleged increasing mass with velocity to experiments with charges, by an ad hoc fit.
The right reasoning is explained here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324259529_Special_Relativity_Theory_Only_for_Geniuses
In fact, the retardation of the field due to its limited propagation speed causes a Lorentz factor. Not Planck's lie.
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Jerry,
JD: SR gives correct answers when sufficient information is known at the time of calculation. A choice in SR must be made of which clock has proper time in a universe where there is no preferred reference frame.
The term "proper time" comes from the French "propre" and means the clock's "own time", so each clock has its own proper time.
It is clarifying and correcting points like this that leads me to think that discussion should be allowed. There are very few world experts in GR, everyone else is "still learning.
RG risks becoming less trustworthy as a host, the quality of information is declining. Even college sophomores, today, can explain SR and GR. Ask around, and not just in Europe or the US. Pretty soon, even high-schoolers can, there is no need for RG to take on this role -- in detriment of research. There is nothing anti-scientific in controlling misinformation -- science values free speech, not the drum-beat to suppress free speech!
In the same way as the drum-beat of the current anti vaccine "movement," misinformation on SR and GR will be blocked from increasingly persistent abuse -- shortening the visible answers and hiding old answers is a way for this very list at RG to deal with non-sense, surely, but also decreases value. Another way, once recommended by RG, is disengaging the thread. But RG public resources continue to be misused, and there is a mounting liability, and trustworthiness decreases.
Why do people misinform? Many reasons. An inflated ego, against what is obvious, for example. In that case, there is no point in trying to "clarify". As another case, misinformation is akin to a self-immune disease, it is using science to deny science, as if it would be possible in the long run. Likewise, there is no point in trying to "clarify." To clarify, go to school -- community college, for example, or read in silence. No need to post false "rebuttals" in RG. Science is not democracy, nor decided by voting.
BTW, in SR or GR, there is NO increase in mass with speed. It is a false interpretation, a misconception debunked long ago, more than two generations ago. My mass does not increase because a meson flies by.
Dear all, didn't relativists claim that mass is increasing with velocity (Planck's lie), in order to pretend they have an (ad hoc) explanation for Kaufmann's experiments with charges and CERN's accelerations with charges?
And then, years later, suddenly they pretend that mass doesn't increase with velocity, but still special relativity would be valid? What a miracle!
The relativists dump their new nonsense at Universities and mainstream Journals, and everybody should just accept that? Again?
And how would they then explain (ad hoc) Kaufmann's experiments with charges and CERN's accelerations with charges?
They want dictatorship and block all non-relativists, not only at the Universities, but also all the mainstream Journals, and finally all the forums, like RG?
What are they afraid of? Relativity debunked in 100 different ways?
Are charges behaving essentially by the laws of electromagnetism?
Is electromagnetism consisting of real forces, real (force) fields?
Do kinematics have force fields?
Is kinematics the cause or the result?
Can kinematics explain electromagnetism?
Is the shape of the electric field by its retardation (speed "c") for very fast charges (speed "v" close to "c") alike the water shape of a moving omnidirectional fountain? Diluting longitudinally, compacting transversally?
Does the altered shape of the electric field change the perception of the force field?
Is the new shape maybe related to the Lorentz factor? However explained by electromagnetism?
Panic in mainstream Journals and Universities!
Article Special Relativity Theory: Only for Geniuses?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Ed Gerck
BTW, in SR or GR, there is NO increase in mass with speed. It is a false interpretation, a misconception debunked long ago, ...
And who on earth has promoted such a falsity?
Thierry De Mees
And then, years later, suddenly they pretend that mass doesn't increase with velocity, but still special relativity would be valid? What a miracle!
Special relativity is valid by definition, no matter what happens. It is so special that it is proven even by its own inapplicability.
TDM: Dear all, didn't relativists claim that mass is increasing with velocity ...
No, and that is exactly the sort of misinformation that Ed is talking about.
You'll see that all over the place in dumbed-down websites aimed at the general public, and in early textbooks where the use of "relativistic mass" was used as a transitional shortcut to allow some Newtonian equations to be "compensated", but it was always a well understood trick.
EG: «Should questioning Einstein special and general relativity be blocked?»
MH: The above question is actually a suggestion that would, in fact, be anti-democratic ...
The laws of nature are not decided by popular vote.
MH: ... and anti-scientific act.
What is unscientific is allowing clueless crackpots to spread deliberately misleading fake accusations about well understood science in the hope of promote their own failed ideas. That is where the vast majority of the problem arises.
Sadly, getting it is very difficult to get rid of that spam while allowing genuine questions from those learning the current state of the topics.
Ed,
For the last time, motion in bent space time(which implies an acceleration) is GR and is not addressed by SR. If you have a theory that does, make yourself responsible, but you would in any case be treading on GR buisness. In any case you could not say that ANY problem with acceleration can be treated with SR, so maybe you should specify which and why.
George Dishman
You'll see that all over the place in dumbed-down websites aimed at the general public, and in early textbooks where the use of "relativistic mass" was used as a transitional shortcut to allow some Newtonian equations to be "compensated", but it was always a well understood trick.
Not so. For example, an „early“ textbook "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics“ by Bjorken & Drell, on page 203 clearly speaks of "relativistic mass increase", not as of a formal trickery but as a real effect where the ratio m/E, " reduces orbital g-factor".
The "relativistic mass increase" is a topic in Feynman lectures. Again, this "increase" is undoubtedly presented as a real relativistic effect. I've never heard Feynman corrected his view on this "effect".
OK.These two examples are from 1960's. It has passed only about 60 years after Einstein's "discovery". I agree with you--that's a short time for relativists. Time dilation.
But, we have also "relativistic mass increase" from1990's, in a textbook "Modern physics" by Frank j. Blatt, which says "it is the relativistic mass that increases without limit, not the velocity" (p. 34).
There are no "transitional shortcut". That's your imagination, not the truth.
Ed Gerck
SR applies to ARBITRARY motion, including accelerated motion and zig-zags. Physically, length contraction and time dilation are not shut-off by acceleration.
You mean SR applies to accelerated motion, as in "explanation" of the "twin paradox"? We were told that this paradox is "resolved" because the twins are not in equal situations--one must turn around, i.e. accelerate, and then the SR is not applicable. But now, I see you think otherwise. Interesting.
Juan Weisz : Thanks but no. GR is ONLY when gravity is considered, otherwise the Christoffel symbols of the second kind are ZERO and one has SR only. The confusion is just misinformation, old.
SR spacetime has to exist as the very basis of GR, 100 years now. If acceleration exists without gravitational effects, like a rocket, it is then SR. For questions, look for Burgess, and others, where a distinction is made between bent spacetime extrinsic (GR) and bent spacetime intrinsic (SR). This is explanable in college sophomore level, so let us not proceed in RG but my PM is available. The contrarians will just have to believe it, if they refuse to hear reason.
Dear all, why would one apply SR to arbitrary motion if the linear SR already is giving a corrupt result?
If suddenly there is no mass increase with velocity, why would there be time change or length change? Isn't it allegedly all related? By maths?
With what SR trickery will Kaufmann's experiments and CERN's acceleration be "explained"?
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Your reply is not even the beginning of an answer, dear George. I wrote:
"Dear all, didn't relativists claim that mass is increasing with velocity (Planck's lie), in order to pretend they have an (ad hoc) explanation for Kaufmann's experiments with charges and CERN's accelerations with charges?
And then, years later, suddenly they pretend that mass doesn't increase with velocity, but still special relativity would be valid? What a miracle!
The relativists dump their new nonsense at Universities and mainstream Journals, and everybody should just accept that? Again?
And how would they then explain (ad hoc) Kaufmann's experiments with charges and CERN's accelerations with charges?
They want dictatorship and block all non-relativists, not only at the Universities, but also all the mainstream Journals, and finally all the forums, like RG?
What are they afraid of? Relativity debunked in 100 different ways?
Are charges behaving essentially by the laws of electromagnetism?
Is electromagnetism consisting of real forces, real (force) fields?
Do kinematics have force fields?
Is kinematics the cause or the result?
Can kinematics explain electromagnetism?
Is the shape of the electric field by its retardation (speed "c") for very fast charges (speed "v" close to "c") alike the water shape of a moving omnidirectional fountain? Diluting longitudinally, compacting transversally?
Does the altered shape of the electric field change the perception of the force field?
Is the new shape maybe related to the Lorentz factor? However explained by electromagnetism?
Panic in mainstream Journals and Universities!"
See my article: "Special Relativity Theory: Only for Geniuses?"
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Mohamed Hassani
: Claude Bernard and others on the same vein, are wrong today, but seemed ok in 1860. Theories in physics are not hypotheses at all, not just verified by more or less numerous facts. Theories must have a coherent math behind them, such as topology. If a physics theory does not obey topology, it is false. Topology sets the stage for physics, not the other way around.But what is at play here, is persistent misinformation. Friction does not exist at the quantum level, and that is abolute. Misinformation is similar to friction.
TDM : Are you really defendind that special or general relativity is misinformation? You will see. As websites disturbing misinformation come amid mounting questions, YouTube, the world’s largest video-sharing platform, monitors and removes problematic content, routinely. Science is not denial of SR, GR, or vaccines. It is anti-science.
Ed Gerck
See a simplified description, at the college sophomore level, which is important as a measure of ease
Just answer the simple questions.
See http://qmap.pub
YouTube, the monopolistic mainstream media, the monopolistic Journals, the monopolistic Social media, the relativists, try to forbid free speech!
They *are* the problem for mankind.
Einstein himself had his doubts. No wonder he was such a great scientist, IE, he was willing to recognize that his own breakthrough might be at least partially untrue. This flexibility in thinking, I suspect, is part of what made him great.
“You imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.” — Albert Einstein in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel, 1972, p.328)
Ed.
You are enclosed in a room without windows, but stuck to the floor by some force.
How do you tell if it is gravity, or you are inside an accelerating rocket?
By distinguishing between intrinsic or extrinsic spacetime bending?
Your ideas do not match very well with equivalence principle.
regards, juan
Thierry De Mees
Mass increase at high speed was largely abandoned by researchers in the mid 1960s after a series of experiments to measure it. Most revealing was that gravitational mass did not increase in accelerated particles. Other results were covered in text books of the time. The familiar equations of energy and momentum are referenced as they apply to SR and particle experiments.
E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2
pc = E(v/c)
d E = v * d p the dot product
As late as 1962 some references were written with a relativistic mass, but already differential forms of these equations were being tested to decide if particle accelerators could show relativistic mass. Most researchers now regard momentum to be non linear with velocity in relativistic cases.
p2 = (mv)2/(1 - v2/c2)
So far this is all well known and widely agreed in science, but much is said about relativistic mass making old references.
In the past few years I have been exploring the high speed results of these equations. So what follows is not well known or widely agreed.
The first three equations taken together say that if mass changes, then light speed also changes and in the opposite direction. Proof is exactly derived from the equations.
d E2 = c2 d p2
d (mc2)2 = - p2 d c2
Decisive and not even hard. Mass is constant when light speed is constant meaning the entire range of SR that extends whenever curvature of space is not significant.
Since 1921Albert Einstein is on record saying that light speed decreases in a gravity field. From his four lectures at Princeton the equation 107 and paragraphs that follow show clearly that he used variable light speed as both vector and scalar. The result is that mass in these equations does increase in a gravity field.
Einstein equated acceleration with gravity suggesting that mass should increase during acceleration. It ignores the Lagrange Function of 1788 which was and still is a preferred method of predicting motions for groups of gravitating objects in space.
The evidence shows that Lagrangian is correct, motion is controlled by a difference between kinetic and potential energy, not the sum of energies.. Thus increase of kinetic energy tends to counter act and reverse the effects of gravity.
Conclusions are made that light speed increases locally around an object of increasing kinetic energy. Then mass must decrease as speed increases although the momentum is non linear and increasing. This is why particles traveling at light speed have no rest mass. Also it agrees with the high speed mass loss in LIGO observations.
Now an explanation can be given for the first equation consistent with a requirement that total energy is a sum of kinetic and potential. The term (mc2) decreases as speed increases although light speed is increasing locally in the same interval.
You might notice I have done outrageous things here and elsewhere, probably correct and in agreement with the popular equations, but not what the researchers expected.
In all of it I have used the SR methods and not once said the SR is wrong, even when I disagreed on change of mass. What I have said is that SR and GR need a zero velocity reference frame anywhere to be completely rational with present thinking. They can operate without it, but the path forward needs a reference frame. Some famous scientists have proposed isotropic CMB as the zero reference, not to replace SR or GR but to extend them into a modern context.
Also you might notice I have used the well accepted equations to say that local light speed increases around a fast moving vehicle, refuting the popular limitation on star travel. And all of this is in support of SR and GR in the ranges where they have been tested and proven
A hardcore scientific community should do certain things that are generally seen as eccentric in general academic and pragmatic senses. If you don't imagine and go for suppositions, how can you speculate? How can you come up with a hypothesis so that it can be tentatively established or summarily refuted? If that kind of activities is censored, science will have no meaning left with it. In favor of my lame argument, I wish to give some examples:
[1] At first, Newton had proposed that light travels in straight line, but it is composed of tiny corpuscles. Later on, Maxwell experimentally showed that light had a wave nature. Modern research is again bringing back the corpuscular idea by going deeper into the concept of photon.
[2] Alchemists wanted to discover a touchstone so that they could produce gold at their dispense. This headless research and efforts to compensate greed gave rise to certain critical chemistry experiment procedures like distillation, filtration, etc.
[3] In ancient times, humans imagined places like hell, where so-called sinful souls would be thrown in eternal burning conditions. That would be a kind of afterlife. Today, we know that there are indeed extremophile species, and life might be possible even inside extremely high temperature and pressure situations.
I humbly request everybody that contrarians may please be accommodated. If we cannot imagine, then we cannot go for practical speculations ... Some of which might open doors for newer but practical thoughts for further exploration.
Jerry
. The m in the first is rest mass, and does not change with speed.
The second at first looks unfamiliar, but combined with the first gives E=gamma mcc
But judging by the consequences you give, the whole thing is flawed.
What is the trouble?
I dont think mcc can decrease with speed, since your m is the rest mass. It is independent of speed.
I have not checked your third equation, do you use it? If it is correct, you are deducing wrong results.
Your c is an absolute constant and does not change. The expression you give for p is indeed correct.
You cannot assume that rest mass changes.
The Lorenz invariant is consistent with a constant rest mass, the other two variables change with speed.
Energy is not a Lorenz invariant, it depends on frame, you assume the contrary, I think.
regards, juan
Mohamed Hassani
and all: If we do not control proposital misinformation, science will suffer, even democracy will suffer. Self-control is possible, but the experience has been not encouraging. In higher work, cooperation wins over competition, and is more satisfying. Too much useless discussion at RG. We need to reduce the bickering, to be effective, as a first step.
Juan Weisz: By distinguishing between intrinsic or extrinsic bending, others have set the path, since Gauß. I am just referring. Again, look at Gauß, Einstein, Minkowski, Burgess, Wheeler, Taylor, Gerck and others, as I have cited ad nauseam. Misinformation seems worse than cancer. Get rid of it before it causes you greater harm, hermano.
There is no "high speed" or "low speed" in SR or GR. To believe otherwise is purposeful misinformation, do not accept it and go find the reasons in the very joint name -- relativity! No matter what speed, comoving observers never experience time dilation or length contraction, but non-comoving observers always do.
Consequence: the sole cause of a magnetic field B is motion of charges; no motion, no magnetic field. The magnetic B and electric E fields are not independent, and must have the same unit. Goodbye, US or British Units, and SI MKS. Welcome, Planck or natural units.
NOTE: If the universe expansion is added (Cosmology), comoving observers can naturally separate.
Gravitoelectromagnetism has attempted to account for the excess (over-Newtonian) perihelion precession of Mercury, as if the planetary orbits would be affected by a gravitomagnetic field of the Sun [1]. However, the excess perihelion precession of Mercury was successfully explained by Einstein’s GR in terms of a small GR correction to the Newtonian effect of the Sun. More damaging, gravitoelectromagnetism is not Lorentz covariant, but electromagnetism is [1]. Thus, a possible gravitoelectromagnetism effect is not to be considered in physics.
[1] Preprint On the Perihelion Precession of Mercury: Orbit versus Sweep
Gravitomagnetism physically proves the bending of light and the anomalous perihelion advance of Mercury. It proves numerous cosmic events.
Gravitomagnetism has been proven by the Gravity Probe experiment B in satellites.
Since time dilation is fictive, Lorentz invariance doesn't physically exist.
Electromagnetism has been hijacked by the relativists and illicitly deformed.
The correct science is the one that physically explains numerous events.
Preprint The calculation of the bending of star light grazing the sun
Preprint Mercury's perihelion advance is caused by our Milky Way
Dear Jerry,
Thank you for exposing the history of the SR alchemy.
What about the implications on the Kaufmann experiment and the CERN acceleration problems?
TDM: Gravitomagnetism has been proven by the Gravity Probe experiment B in satellites.
Heaviside's gravitomagnetism gets the result wrong by a factor of 2 as we discussed some time ago, GR gets it right and includes the gravitomagnetic effects.
TDM: Since time dilation is fictive ...
It was proven by Ives and Stilwell and has been confirmed many times since.
TDM: Lorentz invariance doesn't physically exist.
The most recent cavity tests have proven it to be correct to 18 significant digits, your statements are all incorrect.
Gravitoelectromagnetism also contradicts Bertrand Theorem, a previous result even. As Mark Twain said, however, "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
Heaviside was incorrect in many ways, and gave a bad name to his operational calculus, as he was not careful with consequences. Heaviside also reportedly started painting his fingernails pink and had granite blocks moved into his house for furniture.
That is just an early example of purposeful misinformation, as if the end justifies the means, which does not as we can see everyday. If you doubt, try to kick a dog, and make sure it is a pitbull. Scientists don't have to, they know the likely result.
Wrong, George. You still don't understand that magnetism can only be measured through the forces that it generates by induction. Hence, whether or not one invents a factor 2 in the equation of B for the magnetic field, it is automatically corrected by the final result of force.
The same is valid for gravitomagnetism.
Wrong, Ed. You don't even understand Bertrand's Theorem.
Gravitomagnetism doesn't contradict Bertrand's Theorem because Bertrand's Theorem isn't about gravity, but about bound orbits.
It is you who doesn't understand anything, not Heaviside.
Oliver Heaviside lays at the basis of the true understanding of electromagnetism, gravitomagnetism, line theory, telegraphy, microchips and so many other things.
The same with Tesla, against which Einstein doesn't even come to his enckle.
Sorry we cannot mix apples with oranges or in our case relativity theories with vaccines.
That is extremely simplified approach and will lead to the insertion of censorship in RG.
Dear Ed
Why only SR and GR are listed here? Why not shut everyone who dares to criticize anything related to official religion and science again.
Censoring does not solve the problem of “quality of information in RG”. What about refuting those who criticize SR and GR rigorously, point by point, instead of censoring them? The problem is that the proponent of SR and GR are only happy to claim that those theories have been tested countless times and that no one should think otherwise. They even do not read any criticisms.
I say this based on my own experience. I have already challenged everyone to refute my claim on “the false basis of length contraction”. So far only you have admitted that there might be a problem. Others pretended not to understand my rebuttal or excused themselves one way or another.
What we have here is double standard. We can easily accept GR because Newtonian gravity could not exactly calculate the movement of Mercury but when it is claimed that length contraction fails to explain the movement of half-silver-mirror in M&M experiment then nobody wants to know.
Ed: There is no rest mass
What happened? you changed from a slightly unconventional defensor of SR to senseless.
You can always choose a frame in which a body is at rest, it just moves along with it, if necesary.
Sure dynamic mass will very with speed (frame) but in Jerry formula m is rest mass.
Blocking new data and theories is already being done by the peer review process.
So, what happens to a society that does this? There are many examples in history.
Democracy declines as the blocking is extended into other areas of life. The society become stagnate and, with overpopulation, becomes susceptible to decline (see Venezuela) . Read "Guns, germs, and steel" by Jared Diamond. For examples of ancient Egypt, Persia, Ancient Greece, Rome, Europe. Consider the incident with the Church and Galileo. He went to house arrest, and science and the power that goes with science went north, first to norther Europe, England, Germany, and finally to the US in the last part of the 20th century. Well, the US is entering the socialist regime (perhaps in the next 10 years), science is already being restricted by "peer review" (nobody wants to fund a program outside of the expertise of the "peers"). Where to next? the long term trend has been westward around the globe.
Well, Ed, you just declared yourself a defender of the "New World Order" with a One World Government, no religion, no middle class, only slaves and masters in a feudal world system, as explained in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
Ennemies of the people!
However, if http://qmap.pub is proof, it will not happen.
Dear Ed
What is wrong with point by point refutation of any criticism.
Ziaedin Shafiei and all: In SR or GR, there is NO increase in mass with speed. Not to be refuted. We do not create atoms, or apply a Hollywood ray gun. It is a false interpretation, a misconception debunked long, long ago, just look it up in case you do not agree with it or want to re-re-re...-discuss M&M.
That is what one thing that is wrong with a point by point refutation of any criticism along the lines of a common misconception, turning it into misinformation by citation of the refutation, as if legitimate! It was done with vaccines, smoking, etc. But anyone can Google the right point, and see, not just what is misinformation, which can then be culled.
Also, SR applies to ARBITRARY motion, including accelerated motion and zig-zags. Physically, length contraction and time dilation are not shut-off by acceleration.
The contrarians have no resort now but to believe this and SR or GR -- if they refuse to reason then the only way left is to abandon reason.
There is nothing anti-scientific or anti-democractic in controlling misinformation -- science values free speech, not the drum-beat to suppress free speech...
My posting, as I refer above, before the resignation in Iran, may not be visible in RG. To facilitate, I will repeat it. It is an example when people do not follow physics as nature says, but what they fancy.
"We have to remove our science from the issues of ideology, Hegel, dialetics' teleological posturing, country, political party, factions, and ethnicity. It may still take centuries to complete but, if my private inbox is proof, it has started." YES, the US position is weakened by the recent resignation in Iran. This was done after my post, and shows the butterfly effect. Nature is not deterministic and has more dimensions. Physics is less inclusive, but gives the insight that helps.
If there is no mass increase, Ed, there cannot be time dilation or length contraction, it's all related. Einstein only studied optical effects between moving inertial reference frames, which give fictive effects.
It consists moreover of wrong postulates and the result is never proven to be correct.
The coincidence that the Lorentz factor is seen in experiments with charges, is... coincidence.
Charges must be studied with electromagnetism,and the physics related to it is electromagnetism.
The real (measured by crossing a physical barrier and producing thermodynamic work) effect depends on the type (comoving, non-comoving) of observers. It is explained above, ad nauseam already. Misinformation is worse than cancer, the patient himself -- himself -- has to cut it off!
If misinformation becomes what you trust, your logic will fail, even what you see is filtered by it, you start seeing what is not there, and do not see what is there. Every teacher has seen students like that, and it is wonderful when they wake up! Rewarding.
Butterfly effect? Without chemical/nuclear reaction? What an utter nonsense. Why am I not surprised to see who wrote this?
Dear Ed
EG “or want to re-re-re...-discuss M&M.”
Do you think this type of comment raises the quality of science in RG?
Of course not. This type of comment is given because you are happy to accept length contraction based on M&M experiment but do not want to accept its false origin when it is pointed out to you. Is this the science you want to preserve?
Ed, SR is all or nothing. It all hangs together, you cannot just throw away pieces of it when you feel so inclined. You went beserk.Get yourself a real reference and study it, if not drop the whole thing.(partial agreement with Thierry here).
I also do not like politics, or extraneous subjects mixed in.
Juan Weisz : I never said on SR, or anything, what you chose to accuse us (more than one). There is nothing to throw away in SR, it evolved, unlike the SM, but no one can block. Even the error of rest mass was kind-of-cute, just 100 years ago. Your SR does not work for arbitrary motion, I say fine, but SR does. Take your hermano as a friend, I consider everyone my friend.
Please do not attempt another fruitless dispute, there is no target to hit but yourself. Typical of misinformation tactics, but do not worry, it is all well-known.
Ziaedin Shafiei : All my comments attempt to raise the quality of RG, obviously, it is fruitless to re-re-re...-re-re-re...-discuss, and repeat. It is all in an accessible college education, or books in a library, about SR, GR, Einstein, Minkowski, etc., and referred here ad nauseam. This is not fancy anymore, to doubt SR. Enough, you are using someone's time, not everyone likes, and you attack the only (your words) who answers you? You are my friend, does not matter to me how you behave. Proceed with more care.
Dear Ed
With kindest regards I try my best not to attack anybody. I even do not tolerate it if people are disrespectful to each other and try to politely remind them that we are only here to discuss science and learn from each other. If I have done any wrong to you please let me know the case and I will apologize to you thousand times.
I simply say why there is a double standard here. Why do you not like the true result from M&M experiment but accept the false result. Is this a personal attack worthy of that type of response?
Dear Ed
I also suggested point by point refutation of any criticism towards SR and GR. In that case people know what has been criticized and what is the pointed answer. This will create a healthy enlightening environment in contrast to the bitter way of blocking people out.
Making publicity about SRT and GRT without reasoning, but with an unsubstantiated brainwashing and spamming, and trying to block free speech is only confirming the swamp it is.
SRT and GRT are not just misinformation, they became desinformation, as hundreds of scientists have proven ad nauseam. Hence, it is safe to consider the nowadays SRT and GRT a scam.
Nothing holds, the ad hoc fitting with experiments using charges are just frauds.
Hafele was obliged to fraud his results for time dilation in order to get hos PhD paper published; Shapiro ran away from the press meeting for his alleged discovery, because he knew he frauded the results with the 24 parameters he had from his measurements.
The mainstream swamp is blocking true results, like true electromagnetism, freed from the Lorentz invariance nonsense, and true gravitomagnetism, as experimentally proven by the Gravity probe B experiment with gyroscopes in satellites.
And so on and so on.
"Relativistic mass increase" was never really debunked. By this I mean that this misconception is very persistent and still in wide use [1].
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0504110.pdf
"YES, the US position is weakened by the recent resignation in Iran."
Oh yes, is it?
True News: http://qmap.pub (put "POTUS on" at top of page)
Thierry De Mees
Hence, it is safe to consider the nowadays SRT and GRT a scam.
Yes, it is indeed. One more example, beside "relativistic mass increase", "time dilation" and "length contraction" is blatant mathematical inconsistency of a "boost", which is almost exclusively used as a description of SR. The "boost" is mainly presented in one spatial dimension and leaves the uneducated reader in impression that everything is just fine--the velocities can still be added although in some "unusual" way, and any two "boosts", one after another, results in some final "boost". This is not so--the "boost" operations are not algebraically closed, except in one spatial dimension. The multiplication of a "boost" with a spatial rotation is algebraically closed, and SR should be always presented in a way that reflects this mathematical fact. But, there is a "small" problem with this--why two inertial observers should rotate anything, if they can be connected with a simple boost? It is not even clear what rotation should they use, if any. The point is that the rotation must be used if we consider at least three different "observers" not moving along the same direction. We must use at least one rotation, and it is not clear between which two observers that rotation should be used. We can take any two, and get different results--the "velocity addition" is not commutative and not associative. We get nothing, or we get anything we want.
I only argue with people if it is worth it, feel flattered then.No dead dog kicking. Anyway, i already said why one would not include arbitrary motions,,
do not get the reason people wont buy rest mass, or wont buy dynamical mass (No sort of mass?).
Of course we are all hermanos.
The best, Juan
Vladimir Dananić : Your comments are off-topic and false. You either do not understand scams or SR/GR; either way is off. Your participation is continent to the rules, we do not need offenders in this discussion -- we are discussing what to do with them. Without SR there's no light, no magnetic field, no MRI -- your careless words are potentially good, however. They show to the contrarians that it is necessary to curb them, in order to save space and patience. Life is a school.
Thierry De Mees : Your crusade against SR is over. Einstein did not need my help, after all. You presented no single fact against SR, just opinions. The rules of discussion, however, need to be reminded to you. You equated misinformation with SR/GR -- so, you either do not understand mmisinformation or SR/GR; either way is off. Life is a school, a benevolent school, however. Have fun obeying.
Juan Weisz
The equations I used are widely accepted, taught everywhere in undergraduate physics and fundamental to any discussion of high speed.. Especially the first three equations are not seriously disputed by any one I am aware of. Rather surprising you didn't t recognize the second equation since it is the means by which Special Relativity enters in to the set.
We might debate what is constant and what isn't. SR is the case in which mass and light speed are constant. Even in Einstein's non technical writing he said that constant velocity of light only applies when Gravity does not have to be considered. The reference I gave to the technical speech of 1921 and publication 1922, references the equations where Einstein treated variable light speed both as a vector and as a scalar in a gravity field.
One of the most misunderstood parts of relativity is that in GR both mass and light speed change as shown in Einstein's equation and the sixth equation I gave.
My use of the Lagrangian to unite QFT with GR is not completely original; work. Other researchers have done some parts of this before, providing a small cosmological constant while kinetic and potential energies in vacuum can be very large but almost equal. Net curvature is small. I provided a way to show that the vacuum energies are finite, by application of Partition theory that is also used elsewhere in science.
Without your recognizing my second equation, I reluctantly mention that in GR the Planck's constant h remains constant, but all the other constants of SR become variable. At the extreme energy of high speed in deep space the h also becomes variable as GR no longer gives correct predictions. It has to do with the limitations of vacuum space that GR did not recognize. I left these equation out of this thread but you can find in my other threads.
About proper time, if every observer assigns proper time to the local clock, then they get different answers in SR calculations for an event which is the main reason some researchers have faulted SR. Einstein gave a long discussion about how the observers must communicate with each other to standardize the time measurement in an event. SR is not at fault. Some researchers neglected to read the instructions about how to use it, which was my first comment on this thread.
Jerry Decker : Your work shows that is possible to include different assumptions in SR without bombastically questioning SR, a bedrock in physics. This is how it is done, even if it results in untruth -- one needs to entertain its possilibity, following a theory, to verify IF it is true in practice. A valid academic work does not need to be right, but needs to follow proper logic-- in physics, a NO is an answer! The NO is also a YET FALSE, when not absolute, can become a NOT YET FALSE, that untrained people confuse with YES.
And there is also an absolute truth, such as the speed of light in vacuo being at most c, which SR defines. But, someone may say, cosmology allows distant objects to exceed c. Yes, but without disrespecting SR at any point. This is measured, and explained, explained. Speed of light in vacuo can exceed c, and does, while SR is valid. This is not a contradiction, as well-known.
Ed Gerck
It is you who don't understand a thing. You are not able to answer the simplest questions.
The rules of discussion is replying scientifically, not by spamming the SR and GRT scam.
As to fun obeying Fake News, the enemy of the people, it shouldn't, and http://qmap.pub with "POTUS on" makes it happen.
Cleaning the swamp means cleaning *all* of the swamp, the totality of the ruling gang, as Eisenhauer warned us at his farewell speech, and which became obvious with Kennedy's assasination.
Mohamed Hassani
: Thanks. Everything I say has a support on nature and third-party work. Nothing is my words alone. Please read again, I did explain unambiguously and referenced, and said it before, and that is how we understand it using SR.I understand too that misinformation may cloud your reasoning, but that is why it, as just one real case, misinformation should be blocked at RG.
The contrarians have no resort now but to believe this; if they refuse to reason then the only way left is to abandon reason. There is nothing anti-scientific or anti-democractic in controlling misinformation -- science values free speech, not the drum-beat to suppress free speech...
Maybe it will be useful if, again, I re-define what belief is and cite once more -- in science, not humanities. That's why I say that your only resort now is to believe, in that precise scientific sense, which is, of course, what I mean. I did not mean in humanities, dialectics, or according to Hegel. Should you find by yourself, much better.
Thierry De Mees , and four or more recommenders of the answer: Please delete your answer, we are not discussing your topics nor POTUS, nor the purely political topics you mention, and SR/GR is absolutely not and never was misinformation.
You are entitled to your opinions but this is off-topic and violates the current rules of RG. Before it harms you and others, just delete. It's already harming at least 5 people. This message may be repeated, in case you do not act.
Yes, what you said covers my current thought. However, this said, I believe there is work to do on the SR-GR interface,
so that things should be much clearer. I do not completly discard some of your ideas either.But not even SR can be well
integrated with the Quantum.
Misinformation does not bother me, maybe Im experienced enough to recognize it. Many of the books I use are prior
to 1970, up to which time this was fairly rare and the usa was still in some golden age, up to the 70 ies recession.
It is just some kid stuff going around these days, with the you tube videos.
These books were really excelent, Tolman, Goldstein and Jackson were there already, Frances Kipp also. The basics Im affraid have not changed at all. GR was almost not taught at all, except for interested or astronomy graduate students. Rather few persons can really digest the connection needed for tensor analysis; interpretation becomes more opaque. This thread tells me that people strugle even with SR, not to mention GR.
I have read GR and understood some of it, no expert though. For every day purpose, it is insignificant compared to QM, or EMT.
- Badges
- Science topic