SkipCaptcha
708
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 358:
Line 358: + +
Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity (view source)
Revision as of 19:28, July 18, 2011
, 19:28, July 18, 2011→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. "
"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]] 09:01, 20 June 2011 (EDT))
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]] 09:01, 20 June 2011 (EDT))
:It looks rather obvious that the person who wrote the list of alleged Einstein's errors interprets terms not in the same way as contemporary physicists would. Whoever set the list should consult it with a physicist freshly from school since many terms in common language don't need to have the same meaninig in physics as they had in Einstein's times. E.g. word ''"mass"'' denoted now by ''m'', itself changed its meaning between Einstein's and contemporary times. It is presently the ''invariant mas'' while before, e.g. in ''"Feynman lectures on physics"'' <math>m</math> was strictly ''relativistic mass'' while ''"invariant mass"'' had to be denoted <math>m_o</math> which still causes endless arguments between physicists and engineers or chemists who each might use different conventions. It looks silly when alleged Einstein's error turns out to be due only to misunderstanding of a physical term. In Einstein's times photons, as today, had mass <math>m=h\nu/c^2</math> and only their <math>m_o=0</math>, which today is written <math>m=0</math> but only because '''idea''' of "mass" chaged, not its physics. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 15:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
== Correcting the example #3 (Pioneer "anomaly") ==
== Correcting the example #3 (Pioneer "anomaly") ==
For many years I'm trying to publish in any scientific peer reviewed establishment journal (to avoid accusations of crankery) the news that according to physics of Einstein's general relativity the universe works slightly differently than scientific establishment assumes. The most important difference is that the so called "cosmological redshift" is not produced by expansion of universe but by an interesting effect of relativity of time, verifyiable with simple, almost Newtonian math, by any bright high shool student. This effect is time running slower in deep space than at (any) observer proportionally to exponent of ratio of the distance between observer and the point in deep space to so called "Einstein's radius of curvature of space". Equally important part of this effect is that it predicts Pioneer "anomaly" within one standard deviation being about as it is observed <math>(7\times 10^{-10}m/s^2)</math>. I'm supplying here the paper that might support this bright high school student in his/her calculations of this effect that I call ''[http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/160.htm Hubble time dilation]'' and consider it being overlooked by all the Big Bang aficionados insisting on expansion of universe against better judgement of Einstein. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:44, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
For many years I'm trying to publish in any scientific peer reviewed establishment journal (to avoid accusations of crankery) the news that according to physics of Einstein's general relativity the universe works slightly differently than scientific establishment assumes. The most important difference is that the so called "cosmological redshift" is not produced by expansion of universe but by an interesting effect of relativity of time, verifyiable with simple, almost Newtonian math, by any bright high shool student. This effect is time running slower in deep space than at (any) observer proportionally to exponent of ratio of the distance between observer and the point in deep space to so called "Einstein's radius of curvature of space". Equally important part of this effect is that it predicts Pioneer "anomaly" within one standard deviation being about as it is observed <math>(7\times 10^{-10}m/s^2)</math>. I'm supplying here the paper that might support this bright high school student in his/her calculations of this effect that I call ''[http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/160.htm Hubble time dilation]'' and consider it being overlooked by all the Big Bang aficionados insisting on expansion of universe against better judgement of Einstein. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:44, 17 July 2011 (EDT)