2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 354:
Line 354: + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 13:01, June 20, 2011
, 13:01, June 20, 2011discussion of point 25
: If you adopt the philosophy that one counterexample disproves the theory, then it is not clear why so many need to be listed. It invites others to reason that if one of these 35 arguments is wrong, then the whole page is discredited.
: If you adopt the philosophy that one counterexample disproves the theory, then it is not clear why so many need to be listed. It invites others to reason that if one of these 35 arguments is wrong, then the whole page is discredited.
: The Gravity Probe B paper is still not posted. I am surprised that the project leaders made such a big splash over this, with no paper to back up what they say. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:05, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
: The Gravity Probe B paper is still not posted. I am surprised that the project leaders made such a big splash over this, with no paper to back up what they say. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:05, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
== Mass and Momentum (25)==
"Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum. "
I'm confused how this is a counterexample to relativity. Relativity does say that anything traveling at the speed of light must have 0 rest mass, but it does not make the claim that something of zero mass has zero momentum. It's a rather famous equation that <math> E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2</math>. Zero mass in the context of special relativity then simply implied that <math>E = pc</math> for massless particles. It's also true that the laws of electrodynamics require light to have momentum, but I'm confused, if you follow this line of reasoning is it trying to imply that light has mass given the premise of this counterexample? Photons have <math> E=pc</math> fits perfectly well in the context of relativity and is self-consistent as far as I'm aware. ([[User:Madblueplanet|Madblueplanet]] 09:00, 20 June 2011 (EDT))