Velocity versus Acceleration in e=mc2

Posted: December 2, 2011 in Physics

Besides Mr Thorpe(Thanks David) I haven’t received any other input. For me this is quite obvious. But before you jump on me please understand that I am only stating that relativistic mass plays a role in limiting “acceleration” in dependent frames. To be dependent some amount of energy has to be exerted over a period of time between the two frames making them dependent  and causing an effect of acceleration. And to use it to place a speed limit on the velocity(defined as the delta of distance per time interval) of mass is wrong.

David Thorpe

it seems like you have more of a problem with Mr.Lorentz and his transform than Einstein.
There is nothing wrong with newton’s theory, except at high speeds and masses.
It is measurably wrong by experiments on earth.In this example you are mixing your reference frames, first you are suggesting that the difference between them from a stationary, relative to both, observer. Then you proceed to move the observe from his relatively stationary position to the reference frame of A.the measurements made will be unique to each observer (at different positions and velocities)from the centre of the two particles and stationary to both, the distance each would appear to move would be indeed nearly two times the distance light can travel in one second apart from each other. But light will always be travelling (arbitrarily) left faster than the particle moving left (arbitrarily B) and moving right faster than the particle moving right (particle A). light from particle A would be severely redshifted when it reaches particles B and vice versa. Light is always constant velocity to every observer no matter the velocity of what emits it velocity.in the second case where you shifted from the centre to particle A’s reference frame, you would do the equation i did earlier using the lorentz transform to find out their velocities relative to each other.
giving you a value of 0.9999494975c meaning again, for light to reach one particle from the other, light speed does not need to be broken. The light will merely be redshifted.

 
Rick Gillespie You nailed it about Lorentz. And I am not disputing time dilution or the speed of light in either frame or any frame for that matter. Just that you need to take into consideration that the Static frame used in Lorentz is always stationary. From my examples over the sample time period object A is actually moving at constant velocity away from object B just as object B is moving at a constant velocity away from object A. To make this math create a limit on velocity is wrong to me. And if you go back to the link http://library.thinkquest.org/27930/relativity.htm you will see that it explicitly states relativistic mass does not allow an object to be “accelerated” past the speed of light. It doesn’t state that it is impossible for two objects to have a greater relative velocity than the speed of light. Velocity is just the distance covered over time. I totally agree with red-shifting as well since the Doppler effect would be in effect.

library.thinkquest.org

During the nineteenth century, scientists believed that light is a wave. They r…See More
Advertisements
Comments
  1. David says:

    The whole idea behind the theory of relativity is that you can’t arbitrarily say that a reference frame is better than or worse than another. To say that particle A and B are both moving has no more meaning than one particle moving and the other at rest. How are you supposed to judge that A and B are moving? You have to pick a reference frame to measure their velocities from. For any pair of particles moving away from each other, there is a reference frame in the middle that would see both particles moving away from each other at the same velocity. But this is not a helpful reference frame for measuring the relative velocities of the particles. To do that you have to pick one of the reference frames of the particles, then look at how fast the other one is moving away. THIS is why the Lorentz transformations always have one reference frame at rest. It doesn’t make sense to do it any other way! There must always be an observer and to that observer he/she is at rest.

    • jetsrock says:

      I can appreciate your comment. And I thank you for the time you took to give it. To state this more simply, If you were to build two large Particle Accelerators(PA1 and PA2) in parallel. PA1 accelerates a particle A to a constant velocity of 99%c in one direction while PA2 accelerates a particle B to a constant velocity of 99%c in the opposite direction. If they passed each other midway after one time unit how far apart would A be from B? After 2 time units how far apart would they be? My math says that for each time unit after they pass the distance between them is 2*99% the distance light travels in one time unit. So B is traveling nearly 2 times the distance light can travel in one time unit away from A. So we either figure out away that LTs deal just with acceleration or we throw them out completely since using them plus relativistic mass to state nothing can have a velocity greater than the speed of light is wrong. So my first goal is to get rid of the speed limit. After that I do not much care if someone thinks anything in four dimensional space can be at rest. But using LT’s to express a relative acceleration makes sense since one object would be accelerating not just moving at a constant velocity.
      Best Wishes,
      Rick

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s