I must admit my understanding of relativity is not great but here are a couple of ideas that have been puzzling me lately.

A)If I build a particle accelerator in the shape of an oval. At one side the plasma is accelerated to near the speed of light and on the opposite side the plasma is decelerated back down to less weird speeds and fed back into the accelerator. If these components are efficient most of the energy I put in is the accelerator on one side is recovered in the decelerator on the other side and recycled. But the plasma is going at different speeds at the two curved ends of the oval, according to Relativity the protons traveling near the speed of light have more mass than the slower ones at the slow end of the oval . So the bend at the fast end of the oval is deflecting more angular momentum. Implying net thrust.

What am I missing here? How is the conservation of energy and momentum maintained? Or have I invented a Reaction less Motor?

B)Theoretically light can be converted into mass and mass can be converted into light. So supposing I had a means of doing this efficiently I can turn do it back and forth with no extra energy required. So If I turn mass into light at the bottom of a hill, I can beam it to the top of the hill turn it back into mass, use it to run a hydro plant, then turn it back into light at the bottom of the hill again and I have more energy than I started with.

 

 

I must admit my understanding of relativity is not great but here are a couple of ideas that have been puzzling me lately.

A)If I build a particle accelerator in the shape of an oval. At one side the plasma is accelerated to near the speed of light and on the opposite side the plasma is decelerated back down to less weird speeds and fed back into the accelerator. If these components are efficient most of the energy I put in is the accelerator on one side is recovered in the decelerator on the other side and recycled. But the plasma is going at different speeds at the two curved ends of the oval, according to Relativity the protons traveling near the speed of light have more mass than the slower ones at the slow end of the oval . So the bend at the fast end of the oval is deflecting more angular momentum. Implying net thrust.

What am I missing here? How is the conservation of energy and momentum maintained? Or have I invented a Reaction less Motor?

Replace this with a classical example, like a roller-coaster. Fast at one end, slow at the other, and we ignore losses, so the cars can make it back up the incline. The cars are going fast at one end and slow at the other. Is there any problem with conservation of energy and momentum?

B)Theoretically light can be converted into mass and mass can be converted into light. So supposing I had a means of doing this efficiently I can turn do it back and forth with no extra energy required. So If I turn mass into light at the bottom of a hill, I can beam it to the top of the hill turn it back into mass, use it to run a hydro plant, then turn it back into light at the bottom of the hill again and I have more energy than I started with.

 

 

Light at the top of the hill has less energy — it is gravitationally redshifted, so it is of a lower frequency.