30
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 134:
Line 134: + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 16:56, November 29, 2009
, 16:56, November 29, 2009→Reply to Johanan Raatz
:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.
:Then tell us whether a greater force is required to accelerate a large relativistic mass in a ''direction orthogonal to its fast motion''. Predictably you will say you never thought or heard about this logical problem before, so please then comment on ''why'' you've never thought or heard about this logical flaw. By the way, relativistic mass has been taught for decades.
:: Sorry to interrupt, but the answer is yes, according to relativity. If a particle is zipping by at high speed, any addition to its velocity---whether along or orthogonal to its direction of motion---is described by a Lorentz transformation multiplied into the Tv for its current velocity.
:: This is not some obscure question that I expect physicists to have never thought about. The addition rules for velocity in parallel and orthogonal directions are a very basic component of special relativity, and directly follow from the Lorentz transformation. All of this is elementary linear algebra. Indeed, relativistic momentum (and what people loosely call "relativistic mass") can be derived from those velocity addition laws by differentiating them with respect to time.
:: You seem to be implying that this is some sort of internal contradiction. But why? There is nothing contradictory about the fact that speeding up a particle is progressively harder, even if you try to do it orthogonally to its present velocity relative to you. The basic fact is that for momentum to be conserved under the Lorentz transformation, you need a factor of gamma in the momentum (which, again, is loosely interpreted as a "relativistic mass", since p=mv*gamma combined with a classial p=mv leads people to see m*gamma as the "mass" part. I find that interpretation more confusing than useful, but it has many adherents.) --[[User:NgSmith|NgSmith]]
Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."
Mr. Raatz says his "best argument" is the "Michelson-Morley experiment."