swansont

This commentary is inappropriate

Is there a question here? You can define mass this way. Or you can use the rest/invariant mass. The equations you construct will be different, based on which definition you use. Which is why you must define which mass you are using; you did not do this in your original post. The default for "mass" is the rest mass, in most physics discussions.

I think the request was for support that aircraft design uses relativity in any way. There are a lot of models that use an "effective mass" (or similar terminology) because it makes the modeling easier, but that does not really seem to be this issue here. In SR, [math]E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4[/math] where m is the rest/invariant mass. One might choose to define mass as [math]m = \frac{E}{c^2}[/math], but that's not the same thing, as it is frame dependent — these equations will only give the same answer in the rest frame.

What science really hates are claims made without substantiation. If evidence is ambiguous, you do a different experiment to solve the problem. That removes the alternative point of view. Outrageous claims like yours are most easily explained by you being unaware of the massive amount of evidence already in existence. What we need to see from you is evidence. If you do not supply any, the thread will be closed

It has the same wavelength because the energy difference of the states dictates this. If it wasn't in phase, the states would be interfering, meaning less energy, and that violates conservation of energy.

No, it depends on the number of protons, because that directly affects the electrostatic interaction. To a much lesser extent it will depend on the number of neutrons, because that affects the charge distribution in the nucleus. (all of this without getting into QM)

A concept for Chuck Norris to understand is that even though the forces are equal in magnitude, they act on different objects. A force acts on you, and you accelerate. The reaction force acts on the other object, and it accelerates.

Could you please rephrase the objection? There's nothing wrong with what baxtonduglonn said.

Right. A probe of some sort is not going to know if the source of the field is a permanent magnet or a current in a wire — a moving charge is going to behave in accordance with F = qv X B. You might be able to deduce the source by looking at the whole "map" of the field.

It's not a physical mechanism. It's a consequence of the speed of light being constant. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It doesn't? I can perceive and measure three spatial dimensions and a time dimension. As far as I'm concerned, they exist. (I'm not going to get into a discussion of what "exist" means.) I mean the length contracts, just as I mean time dilates. Items used to measure those dimensions will behave accordingly. The distance between two coordinate points (be it time or distance) will depend on the reference frame you are in. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Any clock, regardless of construction, will experience the same change. Not all clocks are based on classical movement, though movement is a convenient way of building a clock.

What was ridiculous about my answer? My suggestion was not meant to humiliate you. Relativistic thermodynamics is still sort of an open area of physics. http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/843-1.html Hoping to have an understanding of it without a good background in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics is going to be problematic. There are many different thermodynamic potentials, each applying to different situations. The problem here is that the statement of conservation of energy doesn't account for all of the energy terms. I don't know what happens to entropy in the new frame, but I'm not convinced that it would be the same, so the Gibbs Free Energy is probably the term you should be looking at here. G = U + pV - TS If you're intimidated by all of this, consider not blaming the messenger. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"And mounted on a spherical elephant whose mass may be ignored, which is standing on a frictionless surface." Why wouldn't the point-elephant approximation work here?

No, it's more like you've hit the conceptual speed-bump that trips up many beginning physics students. Think about ajb's post very carefully.

Laser pointers are cheap, but you can do it with even less sophisticated sources.

I think it would be helpful for you to take a course in thermodynamics and learn about thermodynamic potentials.

As insane_alien points out, this will tend to slow us down, which would add to the moon's tidal effect. Weather patterns and mass distributions affect the rotation rate, and since they are unpredictable over anything but an extremely short time, they are monitored — GPS doesn't work so well if you don't know where the satellites are with respect to the earth.

Weird Theory, posting "alternative" science outside of the speculations forum, and in response to a science question are both contrary to the rules you agreed to follow when you joined. Please review them and refrain from such behavior.

Yes. It follows the same laws of physics. The details of the field geometry will be the only possible variable, but in any case it will comply with Maxwell's equations.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/09/i_will_not_read.php?page=2 Despite the R-rating (language, rather than nudity) in the article, I thought it was interesting, and some application to SFN, especially so in the Speculations forum. Just substitute "hypothesis" for "script." An underlying theme to a lot of threads there is the seeming lack of recognition by the poster (most no longer with us, for various reasons) that the many users who post here regularly are giving the benefit of their expertise. This takes time and effort; I know I have gotten some in-thread comments, PMs and reputation comments thanking me for answering physics questions, but more often the response in Speculations is indignation that we would find fault with the latest attempt to disprove relativity or whatever. So to all of you out there, from users to resident experts to mods, who do take time to read the @$#!& script, I salute you!

What you're missing is that you are making a semantic argument, and committing the fallacy of equivocation (or a close relative of it). The way light behaves is not affected by the definitions we give the words describing it.

Why would P=0? One thing to consider: is volume constant?

And mounted on an elephant whose mass may be ignored, which is standing on a frictionless surface.

Because the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers. This is what makes length contract, too.

No, I was saying that nailing down what time is is an exercise in philosophy/metaphysics. As such, I was not offering any clue about what time is. Science is interested in how time behaves. Time dilates, not clocks. Time does not pass at the same rate in different frames.

Now that I think about it, I don't think the frame matters. For an isotropic gas, every photon that gets redshifted will have another that is blueshifted by an equal amount. Based on that, I'd say the energy remains constant.

In which frame?