# Come on, REAL Physics please!

58 replies to this topic

### #18 alexander

alexander

Dedicated Smart-ass

• Members
• 5722 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 06:05 PM

I have thought in a situation where both twins suffers symmetric acceleration and so it cannot be decided which twin age less or more.

at this point direction matters... are you talking about symmetric acceleration in opposite directions?

works the same way it does with one twin accelerating away from the other, within the initial frame of reference, the twins would both age at the same rate...

### #19 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 07:24 PM

alexander:

and thats your fault, go pick up a physics book, by any recent known scientist, read it, get over the fact that you are wrong, and start answering questions

I think I'm right and that those Physics' books are wrong, I'm sorry.

By the way its transverse not "transversal" mass.

Right, time passed since I last talked about and I forget that but it means the same isn't it?

Lets start with basics, how do YOU define mass?

Mass is a mathematical parameter (a number) characteristic of the elementary particles of the Universe present in several important laws of Physics like F=ma, gravitational field, E=mc2.
Something similar is the charge, just a numerical parameter characteristic of the particles.
More complex bodies are constituted by many particles and the total parameters mass and charge are the sum of those of their particles.
Charge is a constant for the elementary particles but their mass can vary in some circunstances. In the new theories is directly related to the current of the rings that compose the elementary particles. Yes the new theory give structures for the basic particles of nature like the photon. If you are interested you should read more in the manuscript (begining in Section 3.1), is not easy to explain the complete characteristic and features of the elementary particles proposed although the basic structure is simple.

at this point direction matters... are you talking about symmetric acceleration in opposite directions?

works the same way it does with one twin accelerating away from the other, within the initial frame of reference, the twins would both age at the same rate...

That from the point of view of the "stationary" frame because each twin see a different thing and here is the inconsistency.
Note that is not a matter to decide which point of view would be right and which would be wrong, the problem is that in different frame of observation we obtain contradictory results and that means inconsistency. A right Physics' theory cannot be inconsistent. Any phenomenon must have totally compatible observations in any frame of observation. The reality is only one. As I say in the section photographs can be taken and be sent to everybody, even us" to see what really happens.

### #20 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 07:37 PM

Just a question: Why this forum is so slow? It lates a lot to charge every page and show it on the screen. It does not happen in any other forum.

### #21 alexander

alexander

Dedicated Smart-ass

• Members
• 5722 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 08:12 AM

Why this forum is so slow?

i don't have any problems, sometimes it can get slow, due to a lot of activity, but other then that it's not any slower then most of the other boards i have ever been on, and i have been and developed quite a few, used to religiously post on php-forums and speed-wise, they all depend on the amount of hops it takes you to get to the site, and the load on the server, this server is on a gig network with a 150 meg backbone?

actually i cant believe they are running DS3s...

### #22 Moontanman

Moontanman

Unobtainium...

• Members
• 9029 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 10:44 AM

i don't have any problems, sometimes it can get slow, due to a lot of activity, but other then that it's not any slower then most of the other boards i have ever been on, and i have been and developed quite a few, used to religiously post on php-forums and speed-wise, they all depend on the amount of hops it takes you to get to the site, and the load on the server, this server is on a gig network with a 150 meg backbone?

actually i cant believe they are running DS3s...

I could do with out the full page ads that pop up between pages with a skip ad button that is a joke.

### #23 alexander

alexander

Dedicated Smart-ass

• Members
• 5722 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 02:48 PM

I think I'm right and that those Physics' books are wrong

oh good, the think part is good, as long as you don't "know" you are right, thinking can be reasoned with.

Right, time passed since I last talked about and I forget that but it means the same isn't it?

Terms, i figured i should correct you, not to be a prick, just to correct you, it's like Palin saying "Nucular", means the same thing as the proper term, but is not the right term, that's all.

Mass is a mathematical parameter (a number) characteristic of the elementary particles of the Universe present in several important laws of Physics like F=ma, gravitational field, E=mc2.
Something similar is the charge, just a numerical parameter characteristic of the particles.
More complex bodies are constituted by many particles and the total parameters mass and charge are the sum of those of their particles.

Didn't answer my question, so then would you say that mass is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference?

Note that is not a matter to decide which point of view would be right and which would be wrong, the problem is that in different frame of observation we obtain contradictory results and that means inconsistency. A right Physics' theory cannot be inconsistent. Any phenomenon must have totally compatible observations in any frame of observation. The reality is only one. As I say in the section photographs can be taken and be sent to everybody, even us" to see what really happens.

i want to stop having to pull everything out of you. when you say that something is inconsistent, present how/where the inconsistency occurs....

### #24 alexander

alexander

Dedicated Smart-ass

• Members
• 5722 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 02:51 PM

moon, ever hear of firefox?
Besides ads make money to support the website, you think its easy doling out 1 hundred green for hosting this website every month? And yet T doesn't complain...

### #25 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

• Members
• 5702 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 03:51 PM

...In relativistic dynamics it is well known that acceleration and force can have different directions because of the called transversal components originated in the acceleration.... You can easily "google" for "transversal mass"....
Rockets don't reach relativistic speeds but they present a large and fast variation in their mass due to the expelled combustible and so should present a not neglihible transversal component in their acceleration and movement similar to the relativistic "transversal mass".....

Martillo,
I googled "Transversal mass" and got this excerpt from a physics book by Poincare, written around the year 1900 or so. That was a time of great interest in the effects of velocities approaching that of light. What we now call: "relativistic" velocities.

It is clear (to me) from this reading that Poincare is separating the longitudinal mass (inertia along the path) from transversal mass (inertia perpendicular to the path) of a projectile traveling faster than 1000 mile/sec. What he does NOT appear to understand is that the increasing inertia (mass) of the projectile along the path is due to relativity. There would be NO increase in the so-called transversal mass; i.e. a force applied to the projectile at right angles to its path would alter that path according to the projectile's rest mass (mass with velocity = 0). At least this is what he is conjecturing.

A rocket losing mass due to propellent loss is a totally different thing from relativity. It doesn't matter how fast it burns the propellent. The mass of the rocket along its path and transverse to its path is always identical.

This is NOT just my conclusion. I have been witness to many rocket experiments at NASA (as a contractor) involving the energy it takes to correct a rocket's path (transverse forces). And these experiments always ALWAYS follow normal Orbital Mechanics and Newton's Laws of Motion. If there were ever ANY difference in long.mass and trans.mass, it would have been detected. Even at one part in a million.

When NASA sends probes to Mars and Saturn, both long.forces and trans.forces are applied well after the initial launch. Those forces may be tiny (a few Newtons) but 9 months, or 5 years later, those probes showed up where they were supposed to be without measurable error.

### #26 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 04:41 PM

alexander:
You sound someway strange, it seems you loose the line of what we are talking about.

Didn't answer my question, so then would you say that mass is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference?

You asked for a definition of mass, now you are asking if it wopuld be dependent of the frame or not.
The answer is not, in the new theory is frame independent.

want to stop having to pull everything out of you. when you say that something is inconsistent, present how/where the inconsistency occurs....

Pyrotex came with the inconsistency I find in the new situation for the "relativistic twins" I present in Section 1.1. You must read the section to understand what we are talking about.

### #27 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 04:56 PM

Pyrotex:

A rocket losing mass due to propellent loss is a totally different thing from relativity. It doesn't matter how fast it burns the propellent. The mass of the rocket along its path and transverse to its path is always identical.

This is NOT just my conclusion. I have been witness to many rocket experiments at NASA (as a contractor) involving the energy it takes to correct a rocket's path (transverse forces). And these experiments always ALWAYS follow normal Orbital Mechanics and Newton's Laws of Motion. If there were ever ANY difference in long.mass and trans.mass, it would have been detected. Even at one part in a million.

When NASA sends probes to Mars and Saturn, both long.forces and trans.forces are applied well after the initial launch. Those forces may be tiny (a few Newtons) but 9 months, or 5 years later, those probes showed up where they were supposed to be without measurable error.

But I'm not saying that a "transverse mass" would appear.
What I say is:
If the relation F=dp/dt would be used in the movement of the rocket and as the component vdm/dt is not neglihible some transversal component of the acceleration should appear. Acceleration and Force would not have the same direction (in a similar way as relativistic dynamics but not the same).
I agree that the subject is someway confusing... may be I'm not presenting it properly.

Anyway what you say seems to agree with me. If no "transverse mass" have been detected in any of NASA's rockets, even the interplanetary ones, this seems to be some evidence that the relativistic dynamics could fail in rockets. May be in those rockets the velocity is not neglihible.
What do you think?

### #28 alexander

alexander

Dedicated Smart-ass

• Members
• 5722 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 06:02 PM

You asked for a definition of mass, now you are asking if it wopuld be dependent of the frame or not.
The answer is not, in the new theory is frame independent.

This is NOT just my conclusion. I have been witness to many rocket experiments at NASA (as a contractor) involving the energy it takes to correct a rocket's path (transverse forces). And these experiments always ALWAYS follow normal Orbital Mechanics and Newton's Laws of Motion. If there were ever ANY difference in long.mass and trans.mass, it would have been detected. Even at one part in a million.

When NASA sends probes to Mars and Saturn, both long.forces and trans.forces are applied well after the initial launch. Those forces may be tiny (a few Newtons) but 9 months, or 5 years later, those probes showed up where they were supposed to be without measurable error.

Can you clear my confusion, you say that long and trans forces are applied, do you mean to say that nasa applies a correctional force, or that they dont apply correctional force and don't see the effects of the force on the overall trajectory?

### #29 Janus

Janus

Understanding

• Members
• 407 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 06:49 PM

Can you clear my confusion, you say that long and trans forces are applied, do you mean to say that nasa applies a correctional force, or that they dont apply correctional force and don't see the effects of the force on the overall trajectory?

I'm pretty sure he means that tranverse forces are applied.

An example is the "broken plane" maneuver made by interplanetary probes. Since the planets do not orbit with the same inclinations, you have to adjust the probes trajectory from being in the Earth's orbital plane to being in the target planet's plane. This is done by applying the proper transverse thrust when the probe reaches the one of the nodes (the point where the planes intersect) for the two orbits.

### #30 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 07:16 PM

Can you clear my confusion, you say that long and trans forces are applied, do you mean to say that nasa applies a correctional force, or that they dont apply correctional force and don't see the effects of the force on the overall trajectory?

What I say is that actually in the movements of rockets the relation F=ma is applied and not F=dp/dt.
Pyrotex have shown that NASA applies Newtonian dynamics to the rockets and there's no correctional forces to this because transverse force does not exist.

The transverse impulses Janus mention is another thing.

For the other part of your post I don't understand why it is hard for both to follow the other reasoning. I'm sorry if I don't understand well what you ask.

### #31 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

• Members
• 5702 posts

Posted 16 October 2008 - 08:07 PM

...If the relation F=dp/dt would be used in the movement of the rocket and as the component vdm/dt is not negligible some transversal component of the acceleration should appear. Acceleration and Force would not have the same direction...
Anyway what you say seems to agree with me. If no "transverse mass" have been detected in any of NASA's rockets, even the interplanetary ones, this seems to be some evidence that the relativistic dynamics could fail in rockets. May be in those rockets the velocity is not negligible.
What do you think?

I am left with the strong feeling that you did not understand me. Perhaps I was not clear enough.

Here goes: no, I do not agree with you. No transverse component of the acceleration ever appears. None. Nyet. Nada. If a transverse component of the acceleration ever did appear, it would have been detected, no matter how small. And here's how:

Rockets that go into orbit, or on their way to the planets, undergo very strong accelerations, for up to seven minutes. of time. If ANY transverse "force" or "component of the acceleration" ever appeared, the rockets would NOT have followed their planned paths. NASA would detect this, even if the difference was only 1 part in a million.

Your reading of Poincare's work on transverse mass was, in my opinion, totally misunderstood by you. The transverse components of acceleration you speak of do not exist. They have never been detected.

### #32 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 17 October 2008 - 05:39 AM

Here goes: no, I do not agree with you. No transverse component of the acceleration ever appears. None. Nyet. Nada. If a transverse component of the acceleration ever did appear, it would have been detected, no matter how small. And here's how:

Rockets that go into orbit, or on their way to the planets, undergo very strong accelerations, for up to seven minutes. of time. If ANY transverse "force" or "component of the acceleration" ever appeared, the rockets would NOT have followed their planned paths. NASA would detect this, even if the difference was only 1 part in a million.

But Relativity predicts a transverse force, then, how do you explain?

Your reading of Poincare's work on transverse mass was, in my opinion, totally misunderstood by you. The transverse components of acceleration you speak of do not exist. They have never been detected.

I couldn't read the article because I couldn't find it to be available freely in your link.

Questioning

• Members
• 220 posts

Posted 17 October 2008 - 08:37 AM

As I am currently studying physics at uni I may just have enough to add a few things here.

First off, In SPECIAL theory of relativity there is no acceleration mentioned. Its because its simplistic. And I didn't find any transversal forces yet.

General relitivity does account acceleration and gravity, but as far as I know there are no transversal forces either. Except for maybe when gravity is pulling in that direction.

Its allright that you doubt, but saying that only you know for certain and the whole world is wrong takes more than just guts. No one will believe you before you present some facts, and some strange book on the net just isnt before its per-reviewed.

And I am another one who considers it spam.

Where did the link go btw?

### #34 martillo

martillo

Questioning

• Members
• 151 posts

Posted 17 October 2008 - 10:55 AM

First off, In SPECIAL theory of relativity there is no acceleration mentioned. Its because its simplistic. And I didn't find any transversal forces yet.

Ofcourse it exist. Just google "transverse acceleration".
For example see: Longitudinal and Transverse Mass