xyzt

How do things work out if the spaceship travels in a circle at a constant velocity?

If the clock in the inertial frame measures an elapsed time [math]T[/math], then, in the rocket frame, the measured proper time will be less:

[math]\tau=\int_0^T{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}dt}[/math].

[math]\tau<T[/math]

For uniform circular motion [math]v=\omega R[/math] so [math]\tau=T\sqrt{1-\omega^2R^2/c^2}[/math].

The small steps would have implications on the relativity principle if they were real

You have no proof any any of your confabulations are real. Despite this being pointed out to you, you keep coming back.

SR has been developed from the null result of the M/M experiment,

No, it wasn't

Now, if the frequency of the steps could change, atoms could increase it instead of resisting increasingly to acceleration, which means that if it was an atomic clock that was accelerated, it would run faster instead of running slower,

Acceleration has no impact on the clocks, this is a well known FACT. You keep generating the same fallacies over and over: "If A were true then...." . But mainstream science has already shown that A is false, so what you are doing is just an application of the GiGo principle. Ad nauseam.

No, we can't. The formula applies to a blackbody at a temperature T.

---- A categorical response for not continuing debate of Plank law in "particular view point" with curious lay-man.

XYZt

----- Thanks for the link. Now i have some time to scratch my head.

I simply pointed you to a source that answered your questions. I promise not to do it again.

A Planks formula, a moderators formula and a lay-man -- confused.

In a thread about “quanta of time” the moderator exposed a formula about intensity of power of photon depending by frequency and temperature:

I ( v,T) = (2*h*v^3) / (C^2 * (e^((h*v) / (k*T)) –1))

In the Plank formula we have another version for the same issue:

 

I (λ,T) = (2*π*h*C^2) / (λ^5 * (e^((h*C) / (λ*k*T)) –1))

I am confused because it seems to me that they differ in amount and in concept. Any explanation please where I am wrong, especially in link between (λ, ν, C)

See here

Rotation of earth, considered here, is with respect to its axis. Magnitude and type of earth's resultant motion, with respect to an external reference, depends on other simultaneous motions also. Earth also moves in linear direction along with sun (around galactic centre). Therefore, earth's absolute spin motion is relatively very small. Part of 'central force' due to gravity between earth and sun causes steady acceleration of earth's spin motion. For details, kindly see http://vixra.org/abs/1008.0029

Nainan

Vixra is the place where cranks upload their unpublishable papers. You have quite a few seriously fringe ones. Have you considered studying instead of spouting nonsense?

!

Moderator Note

 

I have removed Fiveworlds' misguided digression into the nature of velocity and vectors and placed it in a new thread in speculations

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86106-split-from-various-ways-of-determining-particles-rest-mass/

 

do not respond to this moderation within the thread - report this post if you have a problem.

 

 

Thanks to xyzt for the nice explanation up top. Do we have any other way of performing the same measurement other than a method that boils down to mass/charge ratio?

Thank you, most methods for charged particles involve controlled collisions of particles accelerated in an electrostatic field, by observing the angle of recoil.

By far, the most complicated methods are reserved for particles that have no charge, like the neutrino. Here is a synopsis of the methods. Here is the complete list of references.

My favorite is the case of the photon. We all know that the photon has zero rest mass. In order to constrain the rest mass of the photon we need a theory that assumes, by absurd, that the rest mass of the photon is non-zero. Using the equations of this theory, we can set up experiments that constrain the deviation from zero of the photon rest mass. This is a wonderful theory, that parallels Maxwell's theory, we owe it to N. Proca.

 

Solve the actual problem and show that the vectors are different.

Would it be possible to split all the nonsense about "fireworlds" misunderstandings in terms of basic science OUT of this thread? Please.

In a recent thread (now rightfully deposited in "Trash"), a member was disputing the idea that mainstream science can measure particles rest mass. Contrary to those crank claims, the measurement can and IS done, there are multiple methods (you can google "rest mass measurement"). I will present a method that, though quite routine, doesn't show up in the search (not clear why).

In a cyclotron, a particle of charge [math]q[/math] and rest mass [math]m_0[/math] will describe a circular trajectory of radius [math]R=\frac{\gamma m_0 v}{qB}[/math] when subjected to a transverse Lorentz force due to a magnetic induction [math]B[/math]. [math]v[/math] is the measured speed of the particle and [math]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

From the above, the rest mass is calculated easily as [math]m_0=\frac{RqB}{\gamma v}[/math].

Since [math]v[/math] is difficult to measure accurately, we tend to use the fact that [math]v=\frac{2\pi R}{T}[/math] where [math]T[/math] is the period of rotation (that can be measured very precisely).

Once again, a mainstream physics thread has been turned into pure rubbish.

Everything. It all moves.

So, I showed that despite the particle being in (circular) motion, mainstream physicists can measure its rest mass, despite claims to the contrary from cranks.

 

No what I said was that you could not measure the invariant mass independent of velocity. http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq_old/Relativity/SR/mass.html

What do you think [math]m_0[/math] is?

I anticipated that you were going to argue that [math]v[/math] appears in the formula but I already preempted that by replacing [math]v[/math] as a function of [math]T[/math].

In a recent thread (now rightfully deposited in "Trash"), a member was disputing the idea that mainstream science can measure particles rest mass. Contrary to those crank claims, the measurement can and IS done, there are multiple methods (you can google "rest mass measurement"). I will present a method that, though quite routine, doesn't show up in the search (not clear why).

In a cyclotron, a particle of charge [math]q[/math] and rest mass [math]m_0[/math] will describe a circular trajectory of radius [math]R=\frac{\gamma m_0 v}{qB}[/math] when subjected to a transverse Lorentz force due to a magnetic induction [math]B[/math]. [math]v[/math] is the measured speed of the particle and [math]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

From the above, the rest mass is calculated easily as [math]m_0=\frac{RqB}{\gamma v}[/math].

Since [math]v[/math] is difficult to measure accurately, we tend to use the fact that [math]v=\frac{2\pi R}{T}[/math] where [math]T[/math] is the period of rotation (that can be measured very precisely).

 

You can do that with a new thread. You can link to the locked thread as a reference of the motivation, if you want.

OK, good idea

(this is regard to http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86055-a-question-about-sr-derivation-of-emc2-m0c2/)

 

Generally when a thread is split off to the trash it's because the hijack is egregious and not deemed worthy of further discussion; in this case it was both off-topic and non-mainstream, and further, there is no supporting material, so it's not something that would be tolerated for long in speculations. And it seemingly jumps from one topic to another (mass energy to absolute rest).

 

The trash is locked, by design.

 

If someone other than the hijacker want to start a new thread and simply quote (via copy/paste) what you are referring to, that's fine.

No, I simply wanted to show how rest mass is measured in experimental physics. Sometimes crank threads can give birth to interesting, useful discussions.

But which one should I click to make the comments back?

You can't do that, only moderators can.

It's in trash can

Yes, it belongs there.

Sorry,I'm new here,could you tell me how to unlock it?

The post was addressed to the moderators.

The hijack thread seems to be locked, I have an answer for the hijacker , could you please unlock it?

Are you talking about the TWIN PARADOX? It's due to the change in inertial reference. And if acceleration is considered, you should use GR to calculate.(both for the man in spacecraft)

Not exactly. SR deals with the motion of accelerated objects , see "hyperbolic motion". You don't need GR in order to explain the twins paradox. SR suffices.

I knew that , but it's the next step ,c² d (m²) = d(m²v²) ,

c² 2mdm=2mvdmv , I m just a little confused about the first one

[math]c^2 d(m^2)= d(m^2v^2)[/math] is perfectly correct.

I've just met a problem when I differentiated the mass-velocity equation.

In m²(c²-v²)=m0²c²

You should get [math]2mc^2dm-2m^2vdv-2v^2 mdm=0[/math] or, alternatively: [math]2c^2mdm=d(m^2v^2)[/math] or [math]c^2d(m^2)=d(m^2v^2)[/math]

Means, we can not differentiate in S' frame.

Rubbish, you can differentiate in any frame.

 

2)For XYZT, You are also wrong

 

you formula in your post

 

Rubbish, this is the DEFINITION of force, in case you don't recognize it. You have been doing this for quite a while. Do you and "hari123" go to the same school? Because you both have the same crank ideas.

Brother, I have examination papers. So, I am very busy. After 20^th oct, we will discuss this in detail. I have face book account also I can give it to you for reference.

Not interested, I am not your "brother", I am not friends with cranks who deny mainstream science.

I am not against your transformation equation given in

http://www.sciencebits.com/node/176 but it works when there is force in X – direction in S frame & there is acceleration in that direction in S- frame.

False, the formula is derived for non-zero components of the acceleration in x, y AND z directions.

I want to put one formula given by relativity

 

This formula clear that when there is force then there is acceleration in that direction.

The above teaches you that [math]\vec{F}=(F_{parallel},F_{perpendicular})[/math]

where:

[math]F_{parallel}=\gamma^3 m_0a_{parallel}[/math]

[math]F_{perpendicular}=\gamma m_0a_{perpendicular}[/math]

So, there is force in BOTH parallel direction (as you claim) AND in the perpendicular direction (as you keep denying). That is consistent with the formulas explained to you, since the formulas contain [math]\frac{du_x}{dt}[/math] AND [math]\frac{du_y}{dt}[/math] AND [math]\frac{du_z}{dt}[/math]

would the sun accelerate towards the earth at the same V?

 

Do you really see that I want to change science on that post?

What we have seen, from your posts, is stuff that has nothing to do with science, so there is no way that your "theories" can "change" science.