Einstein was wrong

Dook · 2004-06-28 09:46:51

You are travelling at light speed in a powerful propulsion ship in deep space far from any gravity source where there is no resistance other than the very minor impact of distant starlight (EMR) upon your hull and you apply more power, what happens? You continue to accelerate! I'm not buying that an increase in energy also increases mass. Do the atoms get bigger? Or does the ship somehow gain more atoms? No. An increase in energy simply INCREASES ENERGY not mass. If you were to impact a solid object the force applied would be more but not because of an increase in mass.

There is no speed limit in space.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-28 11:09:35

I think you are mis-interpreting Einstein a little... it is an apparent increase in mass, not that your ships' atoms contain more mass or more atoms are magicly generated...how to word this... that the faster your ship goes, the more energy it requires to accelerate its reference frame to the next unit velocity is how I understand it.

Anyway, this effect has been well proven, when you push particles in a particle accelerator up close to 1C, you need more energy to accelerate to the next unit of velocity than the last unit. This isn't an esoteric, unproven, paper theory - this is real, proven, observed science.

So yes, there is a speed limit. Everyone is taught Newtonian physics in highschool and college, but those rules are only accurate under about 0.1C. Einstein is right, Newton is wrong.

RobertDyck · 2004-06-28 12:24:35

Experiments in particle accelerators demonstrate that protons accelerated close to the speed of light do actually gain mass. The formula is simple, E=MC^2. As you add energy in the form of kinetic energy, forward velocity, the mass of the particle actually increases. This causes problems because when a particle has doubled in mass, deflecting the particle from a straight line into a circle is enough to simulate the particle to release that energy and spontaneously create a new particle. Yes, this is energy to matter conversion. The most dramatic example of this is if you accelerate a proton so it has more kinetic energy than the energy represented by its rest mass, then collide it with a tungsten foil, it will spontaneously create a lot of new particles. Accelerating a proton that fast without uncontrolled release requires turning the particle very gently, so that means a very large diameter cyclotron. Fermilab and CERN both use this technique to create antiprotons. Both labs have neutralized the antiprotons with positrons (anti-electrons) to create antimatter hydrogen. Once neutralized it is no longer contained in the magnetic bottle, so it lasted a fraction of a second before colliding with the chamber walls.

Relativity creates what appears to be a paradox. Forward velocity translates to mass, but velocity is relative to your reference frame. That means mass itself is relative to your reference frame. Time dilation is necessary to avoid this paradox. That means the crew of some spacecraft travelling faster than 90% the speed of light will not notice themselves get heavier, but astronomers on Earth will. The crew would notice things on Earth appear to speed up, while astronomers on Earth would notice the crew appear to slow down. Motion of the spacecraft will continue relative to Earth, so that means a trip to Alpha Proxima at 4.28 light years away at 0.9c would take 4.75 years as perceived by astronomers, but the crew would perceive less time has passed.

Theoretically, acceleration to exactly 1c (the speed of light) would increase the object to infinite mass and therefore take infinite energy. In practice, however, the object would emit energy as radiation once you get too close so you can't ever quite achieve 1c.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-28 12:57:22

Let me see if I can paraphrase... So the mass on your ship doesn't increase to the crew, but it does get heavier if you are sitting at mission control...

If you are on the ship, time will slow relative to the clocks on Earth, which increases your apparent inertia by "increasing" your velocity. To mission control however, the ship will apear to get heavier as time dialates, requiring more energy to accelerate to the next unit of velocity. In both cases inertia is the same, so the conservation of energy is not violated, on the ship your V is higher but on Earth your M will increase.

In any event, the increase in mass at relativistic velocities is observed in the particle accelerator when you push protons, they do require more energy to bend their path and more energy to push them faster, and they release more energy when they strike somthing than they would with a increase of velocity alone.

Dook · 2004-06-29 09:27:31

The particle accelerator experiments were conducted in a gravity well-the earth. If gravity is a frequency of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) with particle/wave properties it would place an EMR limit on speed. You can't go faster because gravity won't let you.

If you could get away from the gravity well you would have no speed limit.

Dook · 2004-06-29 09:37:27

I'm curious, what frequency is the radiation emitted by the particles as they increase to light speed?

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 09:41:12

No, that can't be because the gravity field is operating on a tangent from the particle accelerator (gravity is a vector force), not along the axis of motion, nor would an electromagnetic effect limit the speed of the particles anyway. If gravity is a form of EMF at all, which it doesn't apear to be.

Time dialation, the key to resolving the relativistic mass paradox, is an observed effect too. If you speed up a rapidly decaying particle, which you know when it will come apart, it will take longer and longer for it to fission the faster it goes. Time dialation has also been observed near black holes with telescopes, and since time dialation is real, then this is very strong evidence to back up the particle accelerator experiements.

If there is a speed limit or not depends on who you are talking about, if you are on the ship and you accelerate to 0.9999999999C or whatnot, you can cross the galaxy in minutes... if you are sitting on the ship. From Earth however, you can never exceed 1C.

Since thousands of years would pass on Earth just to reach the other side of the galaxy, anything other than short psuedo-luminal hops using time dialation to speed things up... it a one-way trip.

RobertDyck · 2004-06-29 10:08:50

Gravity is not a frequency of electro-magnetic radiation. In fact, gravity is not a force. Just as centrifugal force is not a force, but the centripetal effect is a real effect and that effect can be felt. Einstein calculated that the planet Mercury follows the straightest path possible through curved space-time around the sun. You see, a massive object directly causes distortion in the dimensions of space and time. Distortion in time is time dilation. Gravity is an effect caused by distorted space-time, not the other way around. If you don't believe me read "Relativity" by Albert Einstein, it's easier to read than "The Meaning of Relativity" also written by Albert Einstein.

RobertDyck · 2004-06-29 10:24:58

I'm curious, what frequency is the radiation emitted by the particles as they increase to light speed?

It's called http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/accel … ynchrotron Radiation. Frequency is dependant on energy of the particle when it emits, how sharp the particle is deflected, and which particle. Electrons have much lower mass, so much lower energy in their mass. Consequently it's much easier for them to release synchrotron radiation. So synchrotron radiation from a electron accelerator is x-ray or even UV if the diameter of the accelerator is small enough. Synchrotron radiation from a proton is gamma.

Palomar · 2004-06-29 11:11:17

in deep space far from any gravity source

*And where could that be precisely? ??? Gravity intensity may vary throughout the cosmos, but it's pretty much "all over the place" isn't it?

And doesn't *mass* factor in as well? (I'm far from any sort of "authority" on the subject, but IIRC mass increases in proportion to speed?)

--Cindy

Dook · 2004-06-29 14:55:53

If you have a light shining on a measuring device and you then double the distance between the light and the device the intensity drops 1/4. Gravity does the same, double the distance and the effect is 1/4. Gravity is EMR, I don't know what frequency though. The band of EMR we know of goes from gamma to radio, what if there is more? And what if it has strange properties just like the strange properties of all the EMR we know of. Gamma goes through solid objects. Infrared heats solid objects. UVA causes skin tan, UVB causes sunburn. Visible EMR (light). TV. Microwave. Radio. Each with its own very strange, unique frequency and property.

Mass is the measure of an objects gravity. The smaller the mass the less it's gravity. Einstein says an object with no mass (meaning no gravity) can achieve faster than light speed but there is no material we know of that has this property. Yet! Compare aluminum to steel. Steel is strong and heavy, aluminum is strong yet light weight. Steel is magnetic, aluminum is not. There just may be a metal that is similar to aluminum except it does not emit gravity of it's own.

Mass does not increase as an object nears the speed of light the objects own gravity increases or you could call it the repulsive force of gravity that only comes into play when an object nears the speed of light. This repulsive force of gravity is not linear, it comes on in a sharp bell curve.

In very, very, very deep space there would be nothing for the object's gravity to influence. There would be no speed limit.

RobertDyck · 2004-06-29 15:52:50

If you have a light shining on a measuring device and you then double the distance between the light and the device the intensity drops 1/4. Gravity does the same, double the distance and the effect is 1/4.

So you conclude that gravity is electro-magnetic radiation simply because it follows the inverse square law? Does this also mean that all liquids are water? Tell you what, pour a tall glass of gasoline and drink that. If you survive we can continue this conversation.

Dook, the reset of your post shows you haven't studied physics. For example, you really need to look up the definition of mass. I would like to say "finish high school physics", but I don't know if you're a student. You can find good physics books in the public library.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 16:40:15

Sound waves also obey the inverse square law, but they aren't a form of EMR either.

Mass is not a measure of gravity, mass creates gravity, but is not gravity itself.

If gravity were a form of EMR energy of far greater penitrating power than Gamma rays, and it was being released all the time from all the matter in the universe, then where would this energy come from?

And, why is it not quantized into photons like all the other forms of EMR? Wouldn't we be able to measure it if it were?

The best physics minds of the past century have tried to unify gravity as a form of force field like magnetism, but have failed.

Dook · 2004-06-29 17:03:09

If you have a light shining on a measuring device and you then double the distance between the light and the device the intensity drops 1/4. Gravity does the same, double the distance and the effect is 1/4.
So you conclude that gravity is electro-magnetic radiation simply because it follows the inverse square law? Does this also mean that all liquids are water? Tell you what, pour a tall glass of gasoline and drink that. If you survive we can continue this conversation.
Dook, the reset of your post shows you haven't studied physics. For example, you really need to look up the definition of mass. I would like to say "finish high school physics", but I don't know if you're a student. You can find good physics books in the public library.

Fine. Maybe you could choose to not read my posts then if you are not prepared to participate in the discussion. I didnt know it was necessary to insist replies not come from smartasses.

I don't see a single person here who has all the answers and that includes you. By the way, you seem to have left out your indisputable proof that gravity is not EMR. Actually, all of science hasn't yet found out exactly what gravity is. Is there a graviton particle or is gravity like inertia? An effect with no energy source? Again, your indisputable proof? I'm sure your high school physics will soon prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt though.

Dook · 2004-06-29 17:23:29

Sound waves also obey the inverse square law, but they aren't a form of EMR either.
Mass is not a measure of gravity, mass creates gravity, but is not gravity itself.
If gravity were a form of EMR energy of far greater penitrating power than Gamma rays, and it was being released all the time from all the matter in the universe, then where would this energy come from?
And, why is it not quantized into photons like all the other forms of EMR? Wouldn't we be able to measure it if it were?
The best physics minds of the past century have tried to unify gravity as a form of force field like magnetism, but have failed.

We believe mass creates gravity because more dense objects have more gravity but we do not know specifically how the effect is caused. Does the atom somehow emit gravity? It doesn't seem too. Large bodies gravity fields are almost exactly in the center. If the atom does emit gravity then how does it combine with all the other atoms gravity and align to emit a sphere of gravity around a body?

No, I don't know the source of gravity but I think it is a higher frequency than gamma because it penetrates solid objects. Maybe it has to return to its source and that return effect is gravity? But still, whats the source? I know it's a wild and crazy theory but here I don't have to sit on the fence like most scientists and wonder only to myself because I'm afraid the ridicule will ruin my reputation.

Dook · 2004-06-29 17:34:51

Experiments in particle accelerators demonstrate that protons accelerated close to the speed of light do actually gain mass. As you add energy in the form of kinetic energy, forward velocity, the mass of the particle actually increases.

You are saying that simply because an object increases speed it gains mass? Where does this mass come from? Mystery particles from Neverland? And how do these mystery particles accumulate on a particle speeding along in a vacuum at almost light speed? The effect could be described as if the object/particle has increased mass but it has not because it cannot increase mass. It simply resists further acceleration, cause unknown.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 18:57:08

Gravity is not "emitted" persay, but rather the mass actually ripples and warps the shape of space or "spacetime" if you will. The four dimensions, the spacial three and the temporal, are not really seperate at all, exsistence requires all four, if you bend the spacial you also bend the temoporal dimension too...

...So, since time dialation has been observed near black holes, irrefutably so, then therefore this proves that gravity itself also bends the spacial dimensions as well as the temporal. Which is not at all like electromagnetic radiation, or magnetic fields, or whatnot.

Another big problem with gravity being an electromagnetic energy like gamma rays or x-rays is that gravity would have to obey the doppler effect just like the other types, that is, the "gravity waves" between two objects would change and become waves of lower energy, and cease to be gravity. So, if objects moves apart rapidly directly away from eachother, the force of gravity would drop at a greater rate than the inverse-square law, as the gravity would lose its character and assume lower energies, becomming gamma rays.

Note that this is not Synchrotron radiation, which is produced by perturbing the direction of travel, this would be produced simply by the linear motion of any two particles of mass moving away from eachother. This effect is not observed when the particles are moving in a straight line, the Synchrotron radiation stops. The absense of Synchrotron radiation in linear motion is actually proof that you are wrong.

Now about the extra mass...

Yes, an object from a reference frame does gain mass as its speed increases. This is a consequence of the dual nature of matter and energy, you could say, and we know the cause very well. As your velocity increases, so does your kenetic energy, and E=MC^2 if you will recall. Now, this also applies to the kenetic energy of motion ("E") and the speed of light ("C") is a constant. So what does your algebra tell you, as energy and mass ("M") are on opposit sides of the equals sign? That as E increases, so does M.

Matter and energy are linked, two sides of one coin, the atoms themselves that comprise your spaceship will gain mass as they gain energy since E=MC^2 must be obeyed, not that the ship will spontainiously accumulate more particles. It is as plain as day, simple and intuitive, when you embrace that Einstein is right, and the simple Newtonian physics taught in school is wrong.

In closing... "but here I don't have to sit on the fence like most scientists and wonder only to myself because I'm afraid the ridicule will ruin my reputation." ...Ah yes, that there is no dissent or questioning proves that "scientists are being oppressed" for the views? Have you considerd there is no dissent because the prevailing theories are correct and no one can produce evidence to refute them?

Frankly, you are drifting into the realm of PC-psuedoscience, where opinions are so respected that they are treated as a form of evidence of themselves, what you "believe" is irrelivent... old theory despised simply because it is old, and the more noble, brave, even revolutionary the theory... then the more the theory is correct, for no reason at all. In short, bad science.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-06-29 19:43:54

Hi Dook!
I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinions about mass, velocity, gravity etc. Relativity is far from intuitive and takes a lot of mental wrangling to get a handle on, if you ask me.
Personally, I find it useful to express opinions, such as you have done, because it becomes a learning process in itself. The more you discuss something like this, the more you develop your understanding of it - but only with helpful input from others, I think.

I've never heard of the concept of gravity being an exotic form of EM radiation but I can see how you might get around to thinking that way. Scientists talk of gravity particles, gravitons, speak of detecting gravity waves (see LIGO), and speak of gravity as travelling through space at the speed of light. And, as you rightly point out, gravity and light intensity both diminish as the square of the distance.
I can see very clearly how a person might decide EM radiation and gravity must be different manifestations of the same phenomenon.

I don't profess to be an expert on Relativity, by any means, but I think the stumbling block to your hypothesis, at least from the viewpoint of mainstream science, lies in the nature of space-time as it relates to gravity. GCNRevenger and Robert Dyck are trying to explain this to you and I don't pretend to be able to do that better than they have already. But, in the spirit of open discussion, and knowing that the more you chew these things over the more sense it gradually makes, I'll just reiterate a little.
I think the point is that EM wave/particles are seen as energy which propagates through space-time, while gravity is seen as a distortion of space-time itself.
So, a photon is like a fish moving through the water, while gravity is like the undulation of the water itself.

As I understand it, this is what makes the unification of gravity with the other fundamental forces so damnably difficult. Quantum Mechanics is good at describing the behaviour of particles, including the 'force-transfer' particles such as photons and gluons, but is much harder to apply to something like gravity which involves dimensional distortion. This is why we have the two powerful edifices of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, cornerstones of modern physics, engaged in a kind of cosmic Mexican stand-off!

I'm hopeful that eventually Quantum Mechanics will be able to explain gravity, perhaps via the Higgs boson which has been in the news lately. And, given the bizarre nature of this stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if gravity is actually found to be a higher-dimensional manifestation of EM radiation, or some such exotica! Who knows?
In a round about way, Dook, you may be found to be closer to the truth than even you yourself really think!
As has been said: "The universe is not just stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you can imagine."

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 20:59:44

We know what gravity is more or less, and we know what it does, we're just not entirely sure where it comes from... hence the classic Einstein's field theories vs Quantum Gravity standoff.

I like the water/fish example.... Let me see if I can expand on it a little...

Say the fish is stationary, or anything else in the universe, but say the water on one end of the fish is at a lower pressure than the other... then the fish would be dragged into the low-pressure region.

Gravity is similar in that space itself will contract, making a "low pressure" region, that anything in the universe will be pulled into.

Dook · 2004-06-29 21:24:47

I know this is very strange idea and I certainly don't have all of it figured out. Gravity in some ways acts like EMR and some ways it does not but I certainly think it's worth the debate. Besides what's the point in continuing to profess the common belief about physics. I know it's gotten us this far but it really did take a very long time and we will never go any further without some radically new ideas. Even today Einstein is considered a super genius. I guess I shouldn't have used the title "Einstein was wrong" but I didn't think this would get any attention otherwise.

Anyway, I may have an answer to why gravity might not obey the doppler effect. If gravity is emitted in an intense beam that passes through everything (Like gamma but much more powerful. Even gamma radiation is stopped by 6' cement) on it's way out and only as it returns does it act as a force. Gravity does not act upon gravity but on matter/particles.

Also, intense gravity warps space/time and is emitted by large objects-what about small asteroids that pass through the universe? Is their gravity warping space time as they go?

I didn't mean to imply that Synchroton radiation emitted by particles nearing light speed was gravity. I was just curious if the radiation was X-ray wavelength because X-ray's are emitted by particles as they are sucked into black holes.

GCNRevenger: You're proving E=MC2 using E=MC2 as the proof. The only problem I have with that is that mass increases with speed. Energy increases with speed but I think mass stays the same and the slowing effect is not because of an increase in mass but a resistance or repulsion effect applied by the gravity of that mass. You would not be able to tell the difference in a cyclotron since the particle simply refuses to accelerate further. I guess I need a mathmatical formula to explain all of this-energy equals mass times the speed of that mass seems to work but assigning a number, or formula in itself, for the effect of gravity is beyond me.

How in the world do they measure an increase in mass of a particle traveling near the speed of light anyway? And E=MC2 still does not explain exactly HOW the atoms of my spaceship will gain atoms in the vacuum of space or how a particle gains mass in the vacuum of a cyclotron while traveling near the speed of light. The particles themselves or atoms would emit radiation as they increased speed to catch up and hitch a ride on the speeding particle but we don't see this. The particles are not gaining mass. If gravity is being emitted at the speed of EMR maybe it will not allow the particle/spaceship to go faster, sort of like old style aircraft that tried to break through the sound barrier. Maybe you can get through you just need a lot more energy. Hmm, maybe you do need unlimited energy to go the speed of light, not because the mass of the object increases but because the object emits gravity at the speed of EMR forming a barrier.

Also, if you are head strong on E=MC2, there just might be elements that are massless=gravityless that could go faster than light and stay within the bounds of E=MC2.

But then, I could be wrong.

RobertDyck · 2004-06-29 22:01:22

You're right, Dook, I was a smart ass. That was rude. I apologize. My excuse is that I have had people dismiss my knowledge, and me generally as unqualified for anything, so when I see people demonstrate less knowledge than myself I do get a little impatient. I've been studying to ensure I do know what I'm talking about, I expect others who want to discuss science to do the same. I tried to politely point out that science has in fact learned that this direction is false, but you continued to argue so I tried to cut it short, sorry. Really, it was a scientific argument in the late 19th century. Young Albert Einstein's published work "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and later renamed "Special Relativity" has provided the definitive answer for the question you raise. It was published in the summer of 1905 in Annalen der Physik.

By the way, if you dig through this message board you will find other posts from me on this subject. If you read them carefully you will see the conceptual framework for the unified field theory. Or at least my idea of it. But the math! I seriously need a calculus tutor.

Dook · 2004-06-29 22:19:30

Okay, apology accepted. I will go back and read the posts on this topic as well as the two physics books I checked out from the library today. One has the gall to claim the speed of light is not a constant! The idea just happens to solve many of the problems of the inflationary universe concept.

Accepting all previous science without question leaves us with big problems that are/may be unsolvable. I'm not saying that it's all wrong or even the majority but maybe, just maybe, some of the previous science is so very slightly-off.

I'm still not buying the mass increase.

Dook · 2004-06-29 22:29:56

Hmm, I just started reading the book. If E=MC^2 and C is not a constant that sure changes a few things. Doesn't it! Mass does not have to increase at all. The book is called "Faster Than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo. Crazy stuff.

Euler · 2004-06-29 22:31:30

How in the world do they measure an increase in mass of a particle traveling near the speed of light anyway?

They measure the momentum and kinetic energy of the particle by colliding it with other particles.

And E=MC2 still does not explain exactly HOW the atoms of my spaceship will gain atoms in the vacuum of space or how a particle gains mass in the vacuum of a cyclotron while traveling near the speed of light.

How is the spaceship or the particle accelerating? It must be getting energy from some external source, or it would not accelerate. The increase in mass is not due to collecting additional atoms or particles, it is due to gaining additional energy. If E=mc^2, then energy and mass are equivalent, so a gain in energy is the same as a gain in mass.

Also, if you are head strong on E=MC2, there just might be elements that are massless=gravityless that could go faster than light and stay within the bounds of E=MC2.

All elements have mass because all atoms are made from particles that have mass. There might be some subatomic particles that do not have mass. However, how would you detect a massless particle? Could it interact with ordinary particles at all?

Also, intense gravity warps space/time and is emitted by large objects-what about small asteroids that pass through the universe? Is their gravity warping space time as they go?

Yes, but the effect is so small that it is difficult to detect.

Energy increases with speed but I think mass stays the same and the slowing effect is not because of an increase in mass but a resistance or repulsion effect applied by the gravity of that mass.

Rather than thinking of the increased difficulty in acceleration as an increase in mass, I think that it is better to think of it as a consequence of the way that special relativity measures velocity. Special relativity measures velocity using a hyperbolic ruler. To get an idea of what this means, say that a rocket is traveling away from Earth at .9c. Another rocket passes it, and the difference between the velocities of the two rockets is .9c. Since special relativity uses a hyperbolic ruler, the velocity of the second rocket with respect to earth is not 1.8c, instead it is (.9+.9)/(1+.9*.9)= .994c. No matter how much you accelerate, no matter how much energy you use, you will never break the speed of light because of this hyperbolic measurement system.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 22:37:01

"But then, I could be wrong." ...Well i'll help you out on that one, I can tell you with certainty that you are wrong... You are still thinking like a Newtonian physicist, Newton works for small slow things, but ultimatly he is wrong. The universe does not operate as he describes.

It would really help move the conversation along if you would actually read my posts, rather than rewording your previous ones... if you have having trouble understanding the contents, then you should say so, and I will try my best to fill you in.

Gravity as EMR not subject to the Doppler Effect:

If the gravity waves have to bounce off of an object and return before imparting force, or even if they don't it doesn't matter... If two objects are in motion away from eachother, and waves are directed between them, the frequency will be lower than it would if the objects were stationary.

If gravity is such a form of EM radiation, why doesn't it weaken with velocity? Why doesn't it produce lower energy forms of radiation, like gamma or X-ray? ...Since gravity does neither of these things, it cannot be an EMR wave.

Gravity is produced by all things in the universe that have mass, large or small, subatomic particles or supergiant stars... it simply takes a great deal of mass to have a perceptable effect.

Einstein and E=MC^2... you "think" mass stays the same?

I don't believe you are getting just what implications that E=MC^2 have... As you gain kenetic energy, your mass increases, how is this difficult to understand? It is a very simple equation when you throw away Newton's fixed mass, and what you propose would nessesitate that it be false.

E=MC^2 has been experimentally proven, like when two antiparticles collide they produce an amount of energy that obeys E=MC^2, or how we can predict the yeild of nuclear weapons with it accuratly, and so on. This is not a paper theory, this is observed science... Do I need to dig up the equations to illustrate?

You can very much push a particle faster and faster, it will not stop accelerating, it will simply be harder to accelerate until you reach the limits of the energy your accelerator can impart... Not some conjured scheme about the objects' own gravity slowing it down.

And again the ship would not gain atoms or subatomic particles as it accelerates, did you not read my post before you replied to it? The mass of the particles themselves are not constant, but will increase with velocity versus the stationary frame. The particles DO gain mass, provided you are not sitting on the particle.

As for particles without rest mass... thats a whole different story.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-28 09:46:51

Re: Einstein was wrong

#2 2004-06-28 11:09:35

Re: Einstein was wrong

#3 2004-06-28 12:24:35

Re: Einstein was wrong

#4 2004-06-28 12:57:22

Re: Einstein was wrong

#5 2004-06-29 09:27:31

Re: Einstein was wrong

#6 2004-06-29 09:37:27

Re: Einstein was wrong

#7 2004-06-29 09:41:12

Re: Einstein was wrong

#8 2004-06-29 10:08:50

Re: Einstein was wrong

#9 2004-06-29 10:24:58

Re: Einstein was wrong

#10 2004-06-29 11:11:17

Re: Einstein was wrong

#11 2004-06-29 14:55:53

Re: Einstein was wrong

#12 2004-06-29 15:52:50

Re: Einstein was wrong

#13 2004-06-29 16:40:15

Re: Einstein was wrong

#14 2004-06-29 17:03:09

Re: Einstein was wrong

#15 2004-06-29 17:23:29

Re: Einstein was wrong

#16 2004-06-29 17:34:51

Re: Einstein was wrong

#17 2004-06-29 18:57:08

Re: Einstein was wrong

#18 2004-06-29 19:43:54

Re: Einstein was wrong

#19 2004-06-29 20:59:44

Re: Einstein was wrong

#20 2004-06-29 21:24:47

Re: Einstein was wrong

#21 2004-06-29 22:01:22

Re: Einstein was wrong

#22 2004-06-29 22:19:30

Re: Einstein was wrong

#23 2004-06-29 22:29:56

Re: Einstein was wrong

#24 2004-06-29 22:31:30

Re: Einstein was wrong

#25 2004-06-29 22:37:01

Re: Einstein was wrong

Board footer