A simple question

[RLH]

The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when I was 14 years old in a UK public boarding school doing 'O' level Physics.

"But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of light, doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would increase in the same ratio?"

He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/10/2017 v 15:07 RLH napsal(a):

> The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when I was 14 years old in a UK public boarding school doing 'O' level Physics.
>
> "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of light, doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would increase in the same ratio?"
>
> He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.

If the mass of the spaceship had increased,
yes, the mass of fuel would have increased as well.

It is a shame you have not realized the proper answer yet.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/15/17 10/15/17 8:07 AM, RLH wrote:
> "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of light,
> doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would increase in the
> same ratio?"

The mass of neither "increases" with speed. Mass is an intrinsic property of an
object, and cannot possibly change depending on how one looks at it.

IOW: mass is a scalar (i.e. a rank-0 tensor).

Tom Roberts

[Dono,]

The answer is that mass does not increase, mass is an invariant, your question, like all your other questions, makes no sense. This is why your yeacher didn't answer, he couldn't bring himself to tell to your face that you are an imbecile.

[Nos Etrakis]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 10/15/17 10/15/17 8:07 AM, RLH wrote:
>> "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of
>> light, doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would

>> A increase in the same ratio?"

>
> The mass of neither "increases" with speed. Mass is an intrinsic
> property of an object, and cannot possibly change depending on how one
> looks at it. IOW: mass is a scalar (i.e. a rank-0 tensor).Tom Roberts

Absolutely large errorbars, RLH is pretty much consistent in what he is
talking about. If from a stationary would appear the NEED of infinite
energy, then from the same stationary would appear the mass of that energy
increasing. Hahahahhaha, thank you for the laugh.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 15/10/2017 v 15:07 RLH napsal(a):
>> The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when I was 14 years
>> old in a UK public boarding school doing 'O' level Physics.
>>
>> "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of
>> light, doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would
>> increase in the same ratio?"
>>
>> He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.
>
> If the mass of the spaceship had increased,

^^

> yes, the mass of fuel would have increased as well.

JFTR:

Mass does _not_ increase with (relative) speed; it is Lorentz-*invariant*.

x⃗ = (x⁽¹⁾, x⁽²⁾, x⁽³⁾) (3-)position ¹)

u⃗ = ∂x⃗∕∂t = (u⁽¹⁾, u⁽²⁾, u⁽³⁾) (3-)velocity

γ = 1/√(1 − u⃗²/c²) Lorentz factor
(v⃗² = v⃗ · v⃗ = |v⃗|² = v²)
[cf. light clock etc.]

p⁽ⁿ⁾ = γ m u⁽ⁿ⁾ n-component of (3-)momentum

p⃗ = γ m u⃗ = (p⁽¹⁾, p⁽²⁾, p⁽³⁾) (3-)momentum

P⃗ = (E∕c, p⃗) 4-momentum

||P⃗||² = −m²c² Square of Minkowski norm
of 4-momentum

for *all* p⁽ⁿ⁾, therefore *all* u⁽ⁿ⁾.

See also:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass>

> It is a shame you have not realized the proper answer yet.

ACK.


PointedEars
______
¹) parenthesized superscript signifies the contravariant index of a
tensor, not an exponent
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[Nos Etrakis]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Mass does _not_ increase with (relative) speed; it is
> Lorentz-*invariant*.
>
> x⃗ = (x⁽¹⁾, x⁽²⁾, x⁽³⁾) (3-)position ¹)
> u⃗ = ∂x⃗∕∂t = (u⁽¹⁾, u⁽²⁾, u⁽³⁾) (3-)velocity
> γ = 1/√(1 − u⃗²/c²) Lorentz factor
> (v⃗² = v⃗ · v⃗ = |v|² = v²)
> [cf. light clock etc.]

Nothing. Zerouuu.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Nos Etrakis" <guo...@onoggi.lu>:

Already finished counting your marbles?

(*PLONK*)


PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[rotchm]

Well, in the modern terminology, "mass" does not increase, where "mass" has the meaning of the then "proper mass"; A 1kg bloc at 0c or 0.9c still has a mass of 1 kg.

What you are alluding to is the now called (and obsolete) notion of "relativistic mass". In that meaning, then yes, the fuel's (relativistic) mass also increases (by the same factor). Best to say that its kinetic energy increases, in the classical sense. Thats perhaps what you actually mean.

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/10/2017 v 17:32 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Dne 15/10/2017 v 15:07 RLH napsal(a):
>>> The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when I was 14 years
>>> old in a UK public boarding school doing 'O' level Physics.
>>>
>>> "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of
>>> light, doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would
>>> increase in the same ratio?"
>>>
>>> He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.
>>
>> If the mass of the spaceship had increased,
> ^^
>> yes, the mass of fuel would have increased as well.
>
> JFTR:
>
> Mass does _not_ increase with (relative) speed; it is Lorentz-*invariant*.

I do not say otherwise.

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/10/2017 v 18:14 Poutnik napsal(a):

> Dne 15/10/2017 v 17:32 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>> Dne 15/10/2017 v 15:07 RLH napsal(a):
>>>> The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when I was 14 years
>>>> old in a UK public boarding school doing 'O' level Physics.
>>>>
>>>> "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of
>>>> light, doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would
>>>> increase in the same ratio?"
>>>>
>>>> He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.
>>>
>>> If the mass of the spaceship had increased,
>> ^^
>>> yes, the mass of fuel would have increased as well.
>>
>> JFTR:
>>
>> Mass does _not_ increase with (relative) speed; it is Lorentz-*invariant*.
>
> I do not say otherwise.

P.S.: Sorry, I have found JFTR at acronymfinder too late.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 15 października 2017 18:14:20 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> > Mass does _not_ increase with (relative) speed; it is Lorentz-*invariant*.
>
> I do not say otherwise.

Well, High Guru Feynmann did.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 15/10/2017 v 18:14 Poutnik napsal(a):
>> Dne 15/10/2017 v 17:32 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>> If the mass of the spaceship had increased,
>>> ^^
>>>> yes, the mass of fuel would have increased as well.
>>>
>>> JFTR:
>>>
>>> Mass does _not_ increase with (relative) speed; it is
>>> Lorentz-*invariant*.
>>
>> I do not say otherwise.
>
> P.S.: Sorry, I have found JFTR at acronymfinder too late.

ACK ;-)


PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 6:07:30 AM UTC-7, RLH wrote:

> If the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of

> light, doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would
> increase in the same ratio?

A couple of points need to be clarified before giving the answer:

- The spaceship can't "get to" the speed of light, it can only *approach* the speed of light (in terms of any given inertial coordinate system). Maybe in the UK the phrase "get to" means "approaches", but in the US the phrase "get to" means actually arriving.

- When you talk about mass increasing with velocity, you are obviously not referring to the rest mass, you are referring to what is sometimes called "relativistic mass", which is really just another term for energy. The reason for calling it "relativistic mass" in the early days was because, prior to relativity, people didn't know that energy itself has inertia, like mass, so to remind people that the inertia of an object increases with its energy, they used the phrase "relativistic mass". But now that most people have gotten used to the fact that all forms of energy have inertia, most people just use the word energy. (This is admittedly somewhat hypocritical, since much of what we routinely call "rest mass" of ordinary matter is actually bound relativistic mass, e.g., the kinetic energy of the quarks making up the nucleons. The distinction between rest mass and energy depends on the context.)

Okay, having said all that, the answer to your question is found in any good introductory book on relativity, under the heading of "relativistic rocket". Yes, the energy (relativistic mass) of the fuel remaining in the rocket increases with the rockets speed, in terms of any given system of inertial coordinates. This is why the force on the rocket can remain constant - until the fuel runs out. In Newtonian physics the application of a constant force results in constant acceleration, so the rocket could exceed the speed of light, but in relativistic mechanics the application of a constant force does not result in constant acceleration. We can calculate precisely how the rocket accelerates (while ejecting fuel at a constant rate and constant exhaust velocity in terms of the rocket's instantaneous rest frames), and we can show precisely how the rocket approaches, but never "gets to" the speed of light.

> He [middle school science teacher] couldn't think of an appropriate answer.

That's only mildly surprising. Many elementary school science teachers don't understand relativity much better than you do. However, the "relativistic rocket" is such a standard topic in introductory texts that I would have though he would at least have heard of it.

[RLH]

So what would happen to the acceleration? How much further would it still grow? How much closer to the speed of light? That was what caused the stutter.

[RLH]

So what would happen to the acceleration? How much further would it still grow? How much closer to the speed of light? And how do you deal the spaceship captains point of view? That was what caused the stutter.

[RLH]

Anyone noticed the "This message has been deleted." appearing in your reader? This can't be happening! Google can't do this!

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/10/2017 v 19:19 RLH napsal(a):

> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:15:58 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> If the mass of the spaceship had increased,
>> yes, the mass of fuel would have increased as well.
>>
>> It is a shame you have not realized the proper answer yet.
>>
>

> So what would happen to the acceleration? How much further would it still grow? How much closer to the speed of light? That was what caused the stutter.

There is no acceleration conservation law.
As speed approaches c, with the same force,
3-acceleration slows down,
as derivative of 3 momentum per speed increases.

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/10/2017 v 19:26 RLH napsal(a):

No, I did not.

I have just noticed a duplicate of your reply

"So what would happen to the acceleration? How much further would it

still grow? How much closer to the speed of light? And how do you deal

the spaceship captains point of view? That was what caused the stutter."

replying to 2 different posts.

[Odd Bodkin]

That’s because your boarding room teacher didn’t know enough about the
subject to answer intelligently.
Neither the mass of the ship nor the mass of the fuel increases. There is
absolutely no increase in thrust capacity due to any increase in fuel.

So, because you had a poor teacher, your own questions stem from poor
education, and you applaud yourself for keen insight?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

Try a different way to access Usenet.

[Odd Bodkin]

Who is Feynmann?

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
>> […] Poutnik napisał:

>>>> Mass does _not_ increase with (relative) speed; it is
>>>> Lorentz-*invariant*.
>>> I do not say otherwise.
>> Well, High Guru Feynmann did.
>
> Who is Feynmann?

Einstine’s cousin. (That was easy ;-))


PointedEars
--
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 15/10/2017 v 19:26 RLH napsal(a):

>> Anyone noticed the "This message has been deleted." appearing in your
>> reader? This can't be happening! Google can't do this!
>
> No, I did not.

That is because Google Groups is that b0rked that it neither executes nor
distributes the corresponding “Control: cancel” messages from/to the rest
of Usenet. IOW, Google Groups just “sucks”.

Occasionally, and especially when Google Groups posters are involved, I use
Google Groups to explicitly delete a previously canceled or superseded
message there to avoid confusion.

The Klipper action

Expression:

^\s*(?:news:(?:///)?)?[A-Za-z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+(\.[A-Za-
z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+)*@[A-Za-z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+(\.[A-Za-
z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+)*\s*$

(apostrophes escaped for passing them to the shell in a non-expanded
positional argument)

Command:

chromium 'https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!search/messageid$3A%s'

and bookmarklet

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!search/messageid$3A%s

make that easier.

It might be possible to enable canceling from Google Groups with a
userscript that has the credentials for a news server and injects a
corresponding Control message there, e.g. via REST. However, given the
potential for abuse (scripted mass third-party canceling), either the target
newsserver must provide the (Web) interface itself, or additional
authentification should be required, which makes this look less attractive.
Also, if one already has such a news server account, there is really no
point using Google Groups if one is provided with a better Web interface to
that server (I am working on that).


PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Ned Latham]

rotchm wrote:
> RLH wrote:
> >
> > The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when
> > I was 14 years old in a UK public boarding school doing
> > 'O' level Physics.
> >
> > "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets
> > to the speed of light, doesn't that mean that the mass
> > of the fuel on-board would increase in the same ratio?"
> >
> > He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.
>
> Well, in the modern terminology, "mass" does not increase,
> where "mass" has the meaning of the then "proper mass";
> A 1kg bloc at 0c or 0.9c still has a mass of 1 kg.

Nowadays they say that its "momentum" or its "energy" increases,
but that's a relatively recent weasel: as late as 2013, they
were still pusjing mass increase (in pyblic at least), as can
be seen in the documenrary "Faster than the Speed of :ight?"

> What you are alluding to is the now called (and obsolete)
> notion of "relativistic mass". In that meaning, then yes,
> the fuel's (relativistic) mass also increases (by the same
> factor).

Except, of course, that it doesn't.

> Best to say that its kinetic energy increases, in the
> classical sense.

Except of coutse, that it doesn't.

> Thats perhaps what you actually mean.

I strongly doubt it. I think he meant what he wrote.

And. of coyrse, no-one's answered his question, which,
thougth unstated is probably "how does SR make any
differebnce to the spaceship's ability to accelerate?".

My answer is... it doesn't.

[Ned Latham]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> RLH wrote:
> >
> > The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when I was 14 years
> > old in a UK public boarding school doing 'O' level Physics.
> >
> > "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of
> > light, doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would
> > increase in the same ratio?"
> >
> > He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.
>
> That's because your boarding room teacher didn't know enough about the
> subject to answer intelligently.

Unlike the Slow Boy, ay Slow Boy?

> Neither the mass of the ship nor the mass of the fuel increases. There is
> absolutely no increase in thrust capacity due to any increase in fuel.

Congratulations, Slow Boy, you got something right!

> So, because you had a poor teacher, your own questions stem from poor
> education, and you applaud yourself for keen insight?

And then you had to go and spoil it with that condescending crap.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 15-okt-2017 om 21:15 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> <mlwo...@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> […] Poutnik napisał:
>>>>> Mass does _not_ increase with (relative) speed; it is
>>>>> Lorentz-*invariant*.
>>>> I do not say otherwise.
>>> Well, High Guru Feynmann did.
>>
>> Who is Feynmann?
>
> Einstine’s cousin. (That was easy ;-))

Actually, it was Einstien's cousin.

Dirk Vdm

[RLH]

At 14 I was asking questions that normally only come up at which age in classes today? And it was rather a long time ago. I think I'll pat myself on the back in a very small way.

I was on the right track though.

[RLH]

What outside only access to Google Groups? I think that breaks their terms of service for Usenet access both ways equitably.

Wait for the update cycle to hit your provider. History has to match inside and out of Google.

It isn't me calling you newsgroup provider, it's Google.

[RLH]

From the captains frame?

[RLH]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 6:34:19 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:

From the captains frame?

[Dono,]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:23:56 PM UTC-7, RLH wrote:
>
> I was on the right track though.

You were a;ready an imbecile. A precocious imbecile

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The brother of Loretnz?


PointedEars

P.S. Please fix your From.
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/10/2017 v 23:24 RLH napsal(a):

> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 6:34:19 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 15/10/2017 v 19:19 RLH napsal(a):
>>> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:15:58 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the mass of the spaceship had increased,
>>>> yes, the mass of fuel would have increased as well.
>>>>
>>>> It is a shame you have not realized the proper answer yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So what would happen to the acceleration? How much further would it still grow? How much closer to the speed of light? That was what caused the stutter.
>>
>> There is no acceleration conservation law.
>> As speed approaches c, with the same force,
>> 3-acceleration slows down,
>> as derivative of 3 momentum per speed increases.
>>
>

> From the captains frame?

You should know the answer as well as I do,
so why do you ask ?

[RLH]

well how does he stop just accelerating? As far as he is concerned, nothing has changed. Still continuing onward and upwards.

P.S. We will never get close to c though. The "bugs on the windshield" (hydrogen atoms) problem ensures that. Hit those at any large velocity and they turn into bullets. No matter how you think the maths is done.

[Lofty Goat]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 14:24:05 -0700 (PDT), RLH

<richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 6:42:11 PM UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> RLH <richardli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:07:30 PM UTC+1, RLH wrote:
>> >> The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when I was 14 years
>> >> old in a UK public boarding school doing 'O' level Physics.
>> >>
>> >> "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets to the speed of
>> >> light, doesn't that mean that the mass of the fuel on-board would
>> >> increase in the same ratio?"
>> >>
>> >> He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.
>> >
>> > Anyone noticed the "This message has been deleted." appearing in your
>> > reader? This can't be happening! Google can't do this!
>> >
>>
>> Try a different way to access Usenet.
>

>What outside only access to Google Groups? I think that breaks their terms of service for Usenet access both ways equitably.
>
>Wait for the update cycle to hit your provider. History has to match inside and out of Google.
>
>It isn't me calling you newsgroup provider, it's Google.

Use Google: search for "free news server" and "free newsreader". I pay
for both of mine, but I do more than just read this physics group.

--
Goat

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 15/10/2017 v 19:19 RLH napsal(a):
>> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 2:15:58 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>>> If the mass of the spaceship had increased,
>>> yes, the mass of fuel would have increased as well.
>>>
>>> It is a shame you have not realized the proper answer yet.
>> So what would happen to the acceleration? How much further would it still
>> grow? How much closer to the speed of light? That was what caused the
>> stutter.
>
> There is no acceleration conservation law.
> As speed approaches c, with the same force,
> 3-acceleration slows down,
> as derivative of 3 momentum per speed increases.

Thanks for another way of explaining it. (Unfortunately, we are talking to
deaf ears.)

I think the corresponding equations are

p = γ m u
ṗ = γ m u̇
= γ m a
= m a/√(1 − u²/c²)
a = ṗ √(1 − u²/c²)/m

lim a = 0. ∎
u → ±c^∓

[Am I correct in assuming that I can treat γ as a constant in the
derivative even though technically it depends on u?]

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

rotchm wrote:
> What you are alluding to is the now called (and obsolete) notion of
> "relativistic mass". In that meaning, then yes, the fuel's (relativistic)

> mass also increases (by the same factor). Best to say that its kinetic
> energy increases, in the classical sense. […]

_Not_ in the classical sense (unless you mean “pre-QM”). The classical
(Galilean/Newtonian) kinetic energy is

Eₖ_{Galilean} = m v²∕2.

The actual, relativistic kinetic energy of a *massive* body¹ is

Eₖ = m c² (1∕√(1 − v²∕c²) − 1).

I have proved this, and by binomial approximation that

v → 0 ⇒ Eₖ → Eₖ_{Galilean}

here recently.

________
¹ For massless particles such as photons, E = Eₖ = p c = ℎ f instead.
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Odd Bodkin]

Ned Latham <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
>> RLH wrote:
>>>
>>> The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when
>>> I was 14 years old in a UK public boarding school doing
>>> 'O' level Physics.
>>>
>>> "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets
>>> to the speed of light, doesn't that mean that the mass
>>> of the fuel on-board would increase in the same ratio?"
>>>
>>> He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.
>>
>> Well, in the modern terminology, "mass" does not increase,
>> where "mass" has the meaning of the then "proper mass";
>> A 1kg bloc at 0c or 0.9c still has a mass of 1 kg.
>
> Nowadays they say that its "momentum" or its "energy" increases,
> but that's a relatively recent weasel: as late as 2013, they
> were still pusjing mass increase (in pyblic at least), as can
> be seen in the documenrary "Faster than the Speed of :ight?"

I see you watch populist trash. And given your typos, perhaps you watched
it drunk.

>
>> What you are alluding to is the now called (and obsolete)
>> notion of "relativistic mass". In that meaning, then yes,
>> the fuel's (relativistic) mass also increases (by the same
>> factor).
>
> Except, of course, that it doesn't.
>
>> Best to say that its kinetic energy increases, in the
>> classical sense.
>
> Except of coutse, that it doesn't.
>
>> Thats perhaps what you actually mean.
>
> I strongly doubt it. I think he meant what he wrote.
>
> And. of coyrse, no-one's answered his question, which,
> thougth unstated is probably "how does SR make any
> differebnce to the spaceship's ability to accelerate?".
>
> My answer is... it doesn't.
>

[RLH]

Sure. But further down the line (assuming that some history in the wider world is important to you), what do you think the search engines will list first.
Googles news servers or yours or will yours still be visible at all to spiders then?

Does your server ignore all delete AIPs from whatever source and do you just ignore any Google requests also? Do you allow spiders? If not how do search engines find your server content?

[RLH]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:01:00 AM UTC+1, Lofty Goat wrote:

[Ned Latham]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > rotchm wrote:
> > > RLH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The same as the one I asked my Physics teacher back when
> > > > I was 14 years old in a UK public boarding school doing
> > > > 'O' level Physics.
> > > >
> > > > "But if the mass of the spaceship increases as it gets
> > > > to the speed of light, doesn't that mean that the mass
> > > > of the fuel on-board would increase in the same ratio?"
> > > >
> > > > He couldn't think of an appropriate answer either.
> > >
> > > Well, in the modern terminology, "mass" does not increase,
> > > where "mass" has the meaning of the then "proper mass";
> > > A 1kg bloc at 0c or 0.9c still has a mass of 1 kg.
> >
> > Nowadays they say that its "momentum" or its "energy" increases,
> > but that's a relatively recent weasel: as late as 2013, they

> > were still pushing mass increase (in pyblic at least), as can
> > be seen in the documenrary "Faster than the Speed of Light?"

>
> I see you watch populist trash.

Now, now, Slow Boy. Just because you don't understand it...

> And given your typos,

That's "typoes". moron.

> perhaps you watched it drunk.

I watch things whether they're drunk or not. It's the information
in them that counts.

[Poutnik]

Dne 16/10/2017 v 01:02 RLH napsal(a):

> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 11:17:10 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>>
>> You should know the answer as well as I do,
>> so why do you ask ?
>>
>

> well how does he stop just accelerating? As far as he is concerned, nothing has changed. Still continuing onward and upwards.

With the basics SR knowledge this should be clear enough.

For the ship frame, nothing changes,
it will have proper acceleration all the same.
Just the external object coordinate acceleration
would asymptotically decrease to zero.

For the external frame,
the coordinate acceleration of the ship
would asymptotically decrease to zero.

> P.S. We will never get close to c though. The "bugs on the windshield" (hydrogen atoms) problem ensures that. Hit those at any large velocity and they turn into bullets. No matter how you think the maths is done.

It was supposed to be very obvious.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 9:01:45 PM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:

> Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > And given your typos,
>
> That's "typoes". moron.

Merriam-Webster, for one, disagrees with you...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typo

... and virtually all other sources agree that 'typos' and 'typoes' are just alternative spellings of the same word...

https://tinyurl.com/yczyjncq

In any case, 'typos' is used about 237 times more often than 'typoes' by a majority of Google users...

http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/writing-for-business/typos-typoes-or-typos/

Google poll results:

typos: 28,300,000

typo’s: 728,000

typoes: 119,000

Clearly, you owe Odd an apology...

[Poutnik]

Dne 15/10/2017 v 21:41 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

> The Klipper action
>
> Expression:
>
> ^\s*(?:news:(?:///)?)?[A-Za-z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+(\.[A-Za-
> z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+)*@[A-Za-z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+(\.[A-Za-
> z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+)*\s*$
>
> (apostrophes escaped for passing them to the shell in a non-expanded
> positional argument)

No wonder why better RE implementations
allow inline comments. :-)

[Poutnik]

Dne 16/10/2017 v 01:02 RLH napsal(a):

>

> P.S. We will never get close to c though. The "bugs on the windshield" (hydrogen atoms) problem ensures that. Hit those at any large velocity and they turn into bullets. No matter how you think the maths is done.

Spaceships will not.
But subatomic particles frequently do.

[Poutnik]

Dne 16/10/2017 v 03:11 RLH napsal(a):

> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:01:00 AM UTC+1, Lofty Goat wrote:

>>
>> Use Google: search for "free news server" and "free newsreader". I pay
>> for both of mine, but I do more than just read this physics group.

>

> Sure. But further down the line (assuming that some history in the wider world is important to you), what do you think the search engines will list first.
> Googles news servers or yours or will yours still be visible at all to spiders then?

>
> Does your server ignore all delete AIPs from whatever source and do you just ignore any Google requests also? Do you allow spiders? If not how do search engines find your server content?

This history is available in Google archive, no matter
what server you use for article posting and download.

Probably not, as was said in other post.
Servers usually ignore the delete requests
because it is abused.

One of the most used free servers is news.eternal-september.org
There are few more free ones and a lot of paid ones.
( mostly for binary groups.)

[Ned Latham]

pnalsing wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >
> > > And given your typos,
> >
> > That's "typoes". moron.
>
> Merriam-Webster, for one, disagrees with you...

Bot interested in revisionist septic crap.

> ... and virtually all other sources agree that 'typos'
> and 'typoes' are just alternative spellings of the same
> word...

So the revisionists are giving the subliterates an
excuse to hide behind while they kid themselves that
they understand English. BFD.

> In any case, 'typos' is used about 237 times more often than
> 'typoes' by a majority of Google users...

The popularity of an error doesn't change the fact that it's
an error. The rule for pluralising English words ending in 'o'
is the same as the rule for pluralising English words ending
in 'y' (except for the "change the 'y' to an 'i'" bit), and
exists for the same reason: it prevents confusion between
plurals and possessives.

> Clearly, you owe Odd an apology...

Wrong. The Slow Boy owes the world an apology, though it's
nothing to do with typoes.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:34:03 AM UTC-6, Ned "Loser" Latham wrote:
>
> pnalsing wrote:
> >
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And given your typos,
> > >
> > > That's "typoes". moron.
> >
> > Merriam-Webster, for one, disagrees with you...
>
> Bot interested in revisionist septic crap.

Numbskull Ned is talking about himself again.

> > ... and virtually all other sources agree that 'typos'
> > and 'typoes' are just alternative spellings of the same
> > word...
>
> So the revisionists are giving the subliterates an
> excuse to hide behind while they kid themselves that
> they understand English. BFD.
>
> > In any case, 'typos' is used about 237 times more often than
> > 'typoes' by a majority of Google users...
>
> The popularity of an error doesn't change the fact that it's
> an error. The rule for pluralising English words ending in 'o'
> is the same as the rule for pluralising English words ending
> in 'y' (except for the "change the 'y' to an 'i'" bit), and
> exists for the same reason: it prevents confusion between
> plurals and possessives.
>
> > Clearly, you owe Odd an apology...
>
> Wrong. The Slow Boy owes the world an apology, though it's
> nothing to do with typoes.

Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is
brutish. – Proverbs 12:1

Do not rebuke an evil one, lest he hate you, but rebuke a wise one, for he
will love you -- Proverbs 23:9

“There’s only one person you’re guaranteed to spend the rest of your
Life with … yourself. Don’t live the rest of your life with an asshole.”
– QuoteGate

Know-Nothing Ned takes photoes and eats SpaghettiOes

[RLH]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:10:41 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/10/2017 v 01:02 RLH napsal(a):
> > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 11:17:10 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> >>
> >> You should know the answer as well as I do,
> >> so why do you ask ?
> >>
> >
> > well how does he stop just accelerating? As far as he is concerned, nothing has changed. Still continuing onward and upwards.
>
> With the basics SR knowledge this should be clear enough.
>
> For the ship frame, nothing changes,
> it will have proper acceleration all the same.
> Just the external object coordinate acceleration
> would asymptotically decrease to zero.

How does it decrease to 0? From that frames point of view there is no change in acceleration over a time period. You could argue that time periods change but that then requires assuming SR is correct to prove SR is correct.

> For the external frame,
> the coordinate acceleration of the ship
> would asymptotically decrease to zero.
>
>
> > P.S. We will never get close to c though. The "bugs on the windshield" (hydrogen atoms) problem ensures that. Hit those at any large velocity and they turn into bullets. No matter how you think the maths is done.
>
> It was supposed to be very obvious.

But often overlooked. In reality there can be no way to approach the speed of light or even get close to it. I would have though that even 0.1c would be tricky. You would need a small moonlet ahead of you to prevent 'accidents' and that is never going to fly (pun).

[RLH]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:19:03 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/10/2017 v 01:02 RLH napsal(a):
>
> >
> > P.S. We will never get close to c though. The "bugs on the windshield" (hydrogen atoms) problem ensures that. Hit those at any large velocity and they turn into bullets. No matter how you think the maths is done.
>
> Spaceships will not.
> But subatomic particles frequently do.

Sure. I was pointing out that any suggestion that we could accelerate some large body to appreciable velocity/speed is impossible for reasons other than the equation.

With sub-atomic particles things are different , true.

And I have an explanation for that too, but I wasn't intending to address that case above.

[RLH]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:24:46 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 16/10/2017 v 03:11 RLH napsal(a):
> > On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:01:00 AM UTC+1, Lofty Goat wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Use Google: search for "free news server" and "free newsreader". I pay
> >> for both of mine, but I do more than just read this physics group.
>
> >
> > Sure. But further down the line (assuming that some history in the wider world is important to you), what do you think the search engines will list first.
> > Googles news servers or yours or will yours still be visible at all to spiders then?
>
> >
> > Does your server ignore all delete AIPs from whatever source and do you just ignore any Google requests also? Do you allow spiders? If not how do search engines find your server content?
>
> This history is available in Google archive, no matter
> what server you use for article posting and download.

So you fine words could disappear from history if Google does not record them. Every time Google deletes something your words vanish globally, You may have them locally, but so what? That was always the problem with the Google's 'take over of the newsgroups and providing the archive.

Thinking you have said something but your grandchildren never being able to find it.

I find that somewhat scary, even if you don't.

> Probably not, as was said in other post.
> Servers usually ignore the delete requests
> because it is abused.

User delete requests sure. Not necessarily peer to peer deletes though. That has to be there to remove offensive material from the web.

Of course you can carry a local copy that doesn't have the deletes, but local data is often not reachable by, say, spiders, so although you can see it, pretty much no one else can.

[RLH]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 7:25:09 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 15/10/2017 v 21:41 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
> > The Klipper action
> >
> > Expression:
> >
> > ^\s*(?:news:(?:///)?)?[A-Za-z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+(\.[A-Za-
> > z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+)*@[A-Za-z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+(\.[A-Za-
> > z0-9!#-\'\''*+/=?^_\`{|}~-]+)*\s*$
> >
> > (apostrophes escaped for passing them to the shell in a non-expanded
> > positional argument)
>
> No wonder why better RE implementations
> allow inline comments. :-)

The problems with trying for backwards compatibility when using simple text as a parameter or parsing text.

As you know there are many others ways to do this.

My favourite would be for all parameters to be in binary, which ever order, instead of any textural version, even on the www.

More compact than the average bear.

Of course you are discussing natural language but I suppose that could even apply there.

[Poutnik]

Dne 16.10.2017 v 13:11 RLH napsal(a):

> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:10:41 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 16/10/2017 v 01:02 RLH napsal(a):
>>> On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 11:17:10 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You should know the answer as well as I do,
>>>> so why do you ask ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> well how does he stop just accelerating? As far as he is concerned, nothing has changed. Still continuing onward and upwards.
>>
>> With the basics SR knowledge this should be clear enough.
>>
>> For the ship frame, nothing changes,
>> it will have proper acceleration all the same.
>> Just the external object coordinate acceleration
>> would asymptotically decrease to zero.
>
> How does it decrease to 0? From that frames point of view there is no change in acceleration over a time period. You could argue that time periods change but that then requires assuming SR is correct to prove SR is correct.

Asymptotically decrease to zero.

Kinetic energy of all massive objects converges to infinity
when their speed converges to c.

SR is proven to be mathematically consistent
and experimentally extremely well confirmed
to be correct model in its domain of validity.

It is your turn to understand it.
You prefer making up things than understanding, as it is easier.

>>
>>> P.S. We will never get close to c though. The "bugs on the windshield" (hydrogen atoms) problem ensures that. Hit those at any large velocity and they turn into bullets. No matter how you think the maths is done.
>>
>> It was supposed to be very obvious.
>
> But often overlooked. In reality there can be no way to approach the speed of light or even get close to it. I would have though that even 0.1c would be tricky. You would need a small moonlet ahead of you to prevent 'accidents' and that is never going to fly (pun).

Particles have regularly speed very close to c.
E.g. the top energy of a photon is measured as 50 Joules,
it is energy of a flying ball.

[Poutnik]

Dne 16.10.2017 v 13:15 RLH napsal(a):

> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:19:03 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 16/10/2017 v 01:02 RLH napsal(a):
>>
>>>
>>> P.S. We will never get close to c though. The "bugs on the windshield" (hydrogen atoms) problem ensures that. Hit those at any large velocity and they turn into bullets. No matter how you think the maths is done.
>>
>> Spaceships will not.
>> But subatomic particles frequently do.
>
> Sure. I was pointing out that any suggestion that we could accelerate some large body to appreciable velocity/speed is impossible for reasons other than the equation.

Practical SR applicability is not in acceleration of large bodies
to high velocities.

> With sub-atomic particles things are different , true.
>
> And I have an explanation for that too, but I wasn't intending to address that case above.

No, you have not.

[Poutnik]

Dne 16.10.2017 v 13:20 RLH napsal(a):

> So you fine words could disappear from history if Google does not record them. Every time Google deletes something your words vanish globally, You may have them locally, but so what? That was always the problem with the Google's 'take over of the newsgroups and providing the archive.

Sure, but NNTP network and NNTP content archive are 2 different things.

Technically, anybody can decide to monitor and archive the public
NTTP traffic. Google does not takeover groups. It just archive them.

> Thinking you have said something but your grandchildren never being able to find it.

Whatever I would want to say to grandchildren,
I would not put it on NNTP network.

Very most of content of internet will not available after 60 years.

> I find that somewhat scary, even if you don't.

Most people consider as scary how much internet remembers.

>
>
> User delete requests sure. Not necessarily peer to peer deletes though. That has to be there to remove offensive material from the web.

Web is different thing.

[Poutnik]

Dne 16.10.2017 v 13:27 RLH napsal(a):

Processing of the plain text is best done with the plain text.

In Windows, I really like Notetab Light free plain text editor,
as it has implemented PCRE and has a powerful "clip" script language.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:12:01 AM UTC-6, RLH wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:10:41 AM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> >
> > Dne 16/10/2017 v 01:02 RLH napsal(a):
> > >
> > > On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 11:17:10 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You should know the answer as well as I do,
> > > > so why do you ask ?
> > >>
> > >
> > > well how does he stop just accelerating? As far as he is concerned,
> > > nothing has changed. Still continuing onward and upwards.
> >
> > With the basics SR knowledge this should be clear enough.
> >
> > For the ship frame, nothing changes,
> > it will have proper acceleration all the same.
> > Just the external object coordinate acceleration
> > would asymptotically decrease to zero.
>
> How does it decrease to 0? From that frames point of view there is no
> change in acceleration over a time period. You could argue that time
> periods change but that then requires assuming SR is correct to prove
> SR is correct.

The only way to "prove" SR is correct is by a REAL experiment. You are
proposing a thought experiment, which can only predict what will happen
IF the assumptions are correct.

"Prove" is what is done with mathematical theorems. Since physical
theories cannot be tested universally, we can only demonstrates that
they are "confirmed" for limited cases, or they can be refuted when
experiment disagrees with their predictions.

Given the postulates of SR are correct (in limited situations), the
conclusions are proven (i.e., mathematically derived).

[Ned Latham]

Gawy Fuck Knucjke wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > pnalsing wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And given your typos,
> > > >
> > > > That's "typoes". moron.
> > >
> > > Merriam-Webster, for one, disagrees with you...
> >

> > Not interested in revisionist septic crap.

>
> Numbskull Ned is talking about himself again.

Wrong again, moron. But *I* am not interested in revisionist
septic crap.

> > > ... and virtually all other sources agree that 'typos'
> > > and 'typoes' are just alternative spellings of the same
> > > word...
> >
> > So the revisionists are giving the subliterates an
> > excuse to hide behind while they kid themselves that
> > they understand English. BFD.
> >
> > > In any case, 'typos' is used about 237 times more often than
> > > 'typoes' by a majority of Google users...
> >
> > The popularity of an error doesn't change the fact that it's
> > an error. The rule for pluralising English words ending in 'o'
> > is the same as the rule for pluralising English words ending
> > in 'y' (except for the "change the 'y' to an 'i'" bit), and
> > exists for the same reason: it prevents confusion between
> > plurals and possessives.

It also prevents confusion between Spanish and English plurals,
and between Greek singulars and English plurals. But those
effects are consequebces of the design, not design features.

> > > Clearly, you owe Odd an apology...
> >
> > Wrong. The Slow Boy owes the world an apology, though it's
> > nothing to do with typoes.

Idiot quoting treated as it deserves...

----snip----

Why is it, Gawy, that you can't come up with an original thought,
can't address the issues, and can't refrain from idiotic abuses,
but instead posture at erudtion with quotations from among the
words of your many betters?

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:07:29 AM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>
> [His usual stupi bull plop and ad homs]

[RLH]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:36:56 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> > How does it decrease to 0? From that frames point of view there is no change in acceleration over a time period. You could argue that time periods change but that then requires assuming SR is correct to prove SR is correct.
>
> Asymptotically decrease to zero.

Implied in what I said.

> Kinetic energy of all massive objects converges to infinity
> when their speed converges to c.

That is an assumption as far as I see it. IF we assume that "Kinetic energy of all massive objects converges to infinity when their speed converges to c." then....

> SR is proven to be mathematically consistent
> and experimentally extremely well confirmed
> to be correct model in its domain of validity.

The overall maths is indeed correct. In fact SR was required because otherwise the sums do not add up. Cloud chambers, particle accelerators, etc. would not 'work' otherwise. A trend to infinity replacing a linear trend was the only option. Hence gamma.

That is NOT in question. The question is the assumption that the gamma term that Lorentz provides should be applied to Newton rather than to Maxwell. Given that Maxwell's equations are themselves limited to propagation at c.

> It is your turn to understand it.
> You prefer making up things than understanding, as it is easier.

Is that any clearer now?

> > But often overlooked. In reality there can be no way to approach the speed of light or even get close to it. I would have though that even 0.1c would be tricky. You would need a small moonlet ahead of you to prevent 'accidents' and that is never going to fly (pun).
>
> Particles have regularly speed very close to c.
> E.g. the top energy of a photon is measured as 50 Joules,
> it is energy of a flying ball.

Indeed they do. In fact the lack of decay of some high speed particles is 'proof' we are correct.

But, if the rate of change of internal decay was caused instead by the internal changes of decay being limited to c then the extra longevity is not caused by time slowing but because of the internal propagation of change is being limited to c.

[RLH]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:45:10 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Very most of content of internet will not available after 60 years.

Says you. The oldest web page that I have listed in the wayback machine is 20th Dec, 1996.

"Lecturing Training Programming Consultancy" with what was a nice spinning molecule but only a static picture now.

As to if that can keep up with the geometrically increasing content is not easy to predict. Every time someone comes up with a limit in computing, a few years later the problem is moot.

[RLH]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:54:53 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
> Processing of the plain text is best done with the plain text.
>
> In Windows, I really like Notetab Light free plain text editor,
> as it has implemented PCRE and has a powerful "clip" script language.

Grandmother - suck - eggs. (if the phrase translates for you)

[RLH]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:04:07 PM UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> The only way to "prove" SR is correct is by a REAL experiment. You are
> proposing a thought experiment, which can only predict what will happen
> IF the assumptions are correct.

True. Hence the observation that a 1.3 (variable) delay 'light clock' is available in the Moon/Earth frame.

> "Prove" is what is done with mathematical theorems. Since physical
> theories cannot be tested universally, we can only demonstrates that
> they are "confirmed" for limited cases, or they can be refuted when
> experiment disagrees with their predictions.
>
> Given the postulates of SR are correct (in limited situations), the
> conclusions are proven (i.e., mathematically derived).

Given that the overall equations are correct we assume that the terms are laid out as we normally use them in SR.

That does not preclude moving terms from side to side in the equation providing we follow the rules, * being replaced by / for instance.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 16 października 2017 14:04:07 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> The only way to "prove" SR is correct is by a REAL experiment.

We know your reality, poor idiot. You had to delete GPS clocks
from it, as they didn't match moronic prophecies of your
idiot guru.

[Poutnik]

Dne 16.10.2017 v 17:31 RLH napsal(a):

> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:36:56 PM UTC+1, Poutnik wrote:
>>> How does it decrease to 0? From that frames point of view there is no change in acceleration over a time period. You could argue that time periods change but that then requires assuming SR is correct to prove SR is correct.
>>
>> Asymptotically decrease to zero.
>
> Implied in what I said.

Not really. Decrease to 0 and Asymptotically decrease to 0
are different things. 1/x does not decrease to 0 for whatever big x.

>
>> Kinetic energy of all massive objects converges to infinity
>> when their speed converges to c.
>
> That is an assumption as far as I see it. IF we assume that "Kinetic energy of all massive objects converges to infinity when their speed converges to c." then....

Experimental evidence is not assumption.

> That is NOT in question. The question is the assumption that the gamma term that Lorentz provides should be applied to Newton rather than to Maxwell. Given that Maxwell's equations are themselves limited to propagation at c.

SR is not theory of electromagnetism. SR principles are *observed*
to be applicable to all fundamental mechanical parametres.

>>
>> Particles have regularly speed very close to c.
>> E.g. the top energy of a photon is measured as 50 Joules,
>> it is energy of a flying ball.
>
> Indeed they do. In fact the lack of decay of some high speed particles is 'proof' we are correct.

We ? And in what particularly ?

>
> But, if the rate of change of internal decay was caused instead by the internal changes of decay being limited to c then the extra longevity is not caused by time slowing but because of the internal propagation of change is being limited to c.

This is the assumption.
BTW, particles are not aware of their speed,
as speed is not an attribute of objects.

Particles cannot slow their decay based on how fast
the observers move wrt to it. and definitely, they cannot
slow down the decay by some many ways
as many what the observer count is.

Your objections are very well known for more then a century.

[Poutnik]

Dne 16.10.2017 v 17:31 RLH napsal(a):

Should it ?

[Poutnik]

Dne 16.10.2017 v 17:31 RLH napsal(a):

Sure, but what is worthy to keep is questionable.
and what is worthy to be found is questionable as well.

[Bud Cargo]

Poutnik wrote:

>>>> P.S. We will never get close to c though. The "bugs on the
>>>> windshield"
>>>> (hydrogen atoms) problem ensures that. Hit those at any large
>>>> velocity and they turn into bullets. No matter how you think the
>>>> maths is done.
>>>
>>> Spaceships will not.
>>> But subatomic particles frequently do.

Hydrogen atoms are subatomic particle, potty.

[Poutnik]

Dne 16.10.2017 v 19:21 Bud Cargo napsal(a):

They are neither subatomic, neither particles, Catty.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 9:31:48 AM UTC-6, RLH wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 1:04:07 PM UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > The only way to "prove" SR is correct is by a REAL experiment. You are
> > proposing a thought experiment, which can only predict what will happen
> > IF the assumptions are correct.
>
> True. Hence the observation that a 1.3 (variable) delay 'light clock' is
> available in the Moon/Earth frame.

Nope. The distance is variable, hence a crappy clock.

> > "Prove" is what is done with mathematical theorems. Since physical
> > theories cannot be tested universally, we can only demonstrates that
> > they are "confirmed" for limited cases, or they can be refuted when
> > experiment disagrees with their predictions.
> >
> > Given the postulates of SR are correct (in limited situations), the
> > conclusions are proven (i.e., mathematically derived).
>
> Given that the overall equations are correct we assume that the terms are
> laid out as we normally use them in SR.
>
> That does not preclude moving terms from side to side in the equation
> providing we follow the rules, * being replaced by / for instance.

Sure. I do it all the time. So what?

[Bud Cargo]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 16.10.2017 v 19:21 Bud Cargo napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>>> P.S. We will never get close to c though. The "bugs on the
>>>>>> windshield"
>>>>>> (hydrogen atoms) problem ensures that. Hit those at any large
>>>>>> velocity and they turn into bullets. No matter how you think the
>>>>>> maths is done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spaceships will not.
>>>>> But subatomic particles frequently do.
>>
>> Hydrogen atoms are subatomic particle, potty.
>
> They are neither subatomic, neither particles, Catty.

I was to say, "are NOT" subatomic. Sorry potty. But you are still wrong.
Unforgivable. There is a MAGNITUDE larger than 10.000, among those thing.
Basic Relativity, potty. You pretend knowing this stuff same way you know
internet protocols.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 12:34:03 AM UTC-7, Ned Latham wrote:
> pnalsing wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And given your typos,
> > >
> > > That's "typoes". moron.
> >
> > Merriam-Webster, for one, disagrees with you...
>
> Bot interested in revisionist septic crap.
>
> > ... and virtually all other sources agree that 'typos'
> > and 'typoes' are just alternative spellings of the same
> > word...
>
> So the revisionists are giving the subliterates an
> excuse to hide behind while they kid themselves that
> they understand English. BFD.
>
> > In any case, 'typos' is used about 237 times more often than
> > 'typoes' by a majority of Google users...
>
> The popularity of an error doesn't change the fact that it's
> an error. The rule for pluralising English words ending in 'o'
> is the same as the rule for pluralising English words ending
> in 'y' (except for the "change the 'y' to an 'i'" bit), and
> exists for the same reason: it prevents confusion between
> plurals and possessives.

Interesting that you choose to use the UK spelling of the word pluralising, whereas I would have used the American form 'pluralizing', which the spellchecker seems to like better. Does that make me a moron, too?

You seem not to understand that these 'rules' you speak of have many, many exemptions throughout the language. The word 'typo', for example, is just a shortcut for 'typographic', just as 'photo' is a shortcut for 'photographic'. It is no wonder that 237 times more people use 'typos' as the plural form, just as virtually everyone uses 'photos' as the plural form. I can assure you that in 71 years on Earth I have *never* seen the word 'photoes' used in any written work, anywhere or anytime... does that mean that there are lots and lots of moronic authors in today's world? I don't think so, Ned.

So, Ned how about the following plural words, are these all incorrect, too?

burritos
radios
hellos
taboos
autos
embryos
cargos
casinos
commandos
doritos
motzos
dynamos
logos
hobos
gizmos
avocados
videos
kangaroos
macros

... and the list goes on and on and on...

Perhaps you should contact the Denver Broncos and tell them that they are morons for spelling their team name the way they do.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Poutnik wrote:

> In Windows, I really like Notetab Light free plain text editor,
> as it has implemented PCRE and has a powerful "clip" script language.

Try <https://atom.io/>.


F’up2 poster

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Poutnik wrote:

> [NNTP] Servers usually ignore the delete requests because it is abused.

Nonsense.


PointedEars
--
Q: Where are offenders sentenced for light crimes?
A: To a prism.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Ned Latham]

Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote his usual quotational wank.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'Ingrid' Lahn wrote:

> Poutnik wrote:
>> 3-acceleration slows down,
>> as derivative of 3 momentum per speed increases.
>
> Thanks for another way of explaining it. (Unfortunately, we are talking
> to deaf ears.)
>
> I think the corresponding equations are
>
> p = γ m u
> ṗ = γ m u̇
> = γ m a
> = m a/√(1 − u²/c²)
> a = ṗ √(1 − u²/c²)/m
>
> lim a = 0. ∎
> u → ±c^∓
>
> [Am I correct in assuming that I can treat γ as a constant in the
> derivative even though technically it depends on u?]

Apparently I am not. According to

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?dataset=&i=d%2Fdt+(1%2Fsqrt(1+-+(dx%2Fdt)%5E2%2Fc%5E2)+*+m+*+(dx%2Fdt))>

if I interpret it correctly:¹)

ṗ = m c⁴ a∕(γ (c² − u²)²)
a = ṗ γ (c² − u²)²∕(m c⁴)
a = ṗ (c² − u²)²∕(m c⁴ √(1 − u²∕c²))
a = ̇p (c − u) (c + u) √(1 − u²∕c²)∕(m c²)

And therefore still

lim a = 0.
u → ±c^∓

Correct?


PointedEars
___________
¹ I easily get lost in nested chains of derivation, so it is
great to have this tool helping me out. (I know: practice.)
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 5:20:55 PM UTC-6, Nutjob Ned Loser Latham wrote:
>
> [His usual lies and arrogant ranting]

Actually, arrogance is the only choice for one who refuses to be a decent
human being.

“There’s only one person you’re guaranteed to spend the rest of your
Life with … yourself. Don’t live the rest of your life with an asshole.”
– QuoteGate

“How much better would life be if a liar’s pants really did catch fire?
-- Rebel Circus

“Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your
mouth” – 1 Samuel 2:3

“A fool is someone whose arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.”
― Orrin Woodward

[Poutnik]

Dne 17/10/2017 v 00:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

> Poutnik wrote:
>
>> [NNTP] Servers usually ignore the delete requests because it is abused.
>
> Nonsense.
>

I will not argument about it, as I do not know NNTP protocols in details.
I was just referring to a post of other participant saying that.
It may be wrong.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,

as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Poutnik wrote:

> Dne 17/10/2017 v 00:16 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>> [NNTP] Servers usually ignore the delete requests because it is abused.
>> Nonsense.
>
> I will not argument about it, as I do not know NNTP protocols in details.
> I was just referring to a post of other participant saying that.
> It may be wrong.

It is.

First of all, those are not “delete requests”, but Control messages. They
are ignored by a few newsservers, but the well-maintained ones implement
them.

However, in order to prevent abuse, recently servers have begun to only
honor “Control: cancel” messages or “Supersedes” (which is equivalent to
“new posting with same References and cancel another posting” in one step)
that have the Cancel-Key header field value that matches the Cancel-Lock
header field value (usually an SHA-1 checksum that is based on the user ID)
of the message to be canceled. Not all newsservers append the Cancel-Lock
header field if the client does not set it, and not all clients are capable
of generating it. So it is likely that the person you have this
"information" from uses such a client–server combination.

For example, you can find the Cancel-Lock header field in my postings; it is
automatically set by the newsserver than I am usually using (one of those in
the <http://open-news-network.org/>; secure access for free, well-
maintained; highly recommended).

Second, the distribution of “Control: cancel” messages is very important in
general and in particular to counteract excessive spamming in Netnews (see
Breidbart Index). There is also a recommendation-type mechanism (NoCeM).

Third, Control messages are not a feature of NNTP (RFC 3977), but of the
Netnews Message Format; see RFCs 5536 and 5537 for details.

Finally, “Control: cancel” messages are different from deleting a Google
Groups posting which so far does not generate nor distribute such messages.
And that is another problem with and bug in Google Groups. While one can
understand that an archive would want to preserve all messages, even if
deleted *elsewhere*, there is no good reason why a message in that archive
and explicitly deleted from that archive by the original author should
continue to exist elsewhere by default; none at all.


PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

[RLH]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 6:40:24 AM UTC+1, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Finally, “Control: cancel” messages are different from deleting a Google
> Groups posting which so far does not generate nor distribute such messages.
> And that is another problem with and bug in Google Groups. While one can
> understand that an archive would want to preserve all messages, even if
> deleted *elsewhere*, there is no good reason why a message in that archive
> and explicitly deleted from that archive by the original author should
> continue to exist elsewhere by default; none at all.

Yup. Welcome to a world which doesn't quite follow the RFCs as laid down. Lack of conformity has long been the problem. People doing stuff that they found inconvenient otherwise because of their views, attitudes or prejudice. Creating silos where none were needed.

What I can tell you for sure is that, if Google takes the action to remove a post or thread, it will never publically make that post available again. This goes for any search engine spiders that crawl its data and also made available through its web portal. You may think that your now partially visible message is OK, Google can't take that away, true. Now try any of the search engines to find it after its gone from Google.

Sure other news servers, including private ones, may have a different view of history to Google but guess who wins in the end. Who holds the authorative repository?

Sometimes peoples views and the myths that have grown up around them and blind them to what actually happens, long and short term.

So its looks like I'll have to switch to creating a VR of SR (if you check the other threads). VR wasn't even dreamed of 100 years ago, but now it is common practice throughout the industry.

A simple class structure that stands in for frames, events, mass, photon, 2d or 3d vectors, distance and the like. Simple really compared to what the games industry does. Kerbela does Newton quite well. So what would the SR version be called?

I'll stick with C# as that can be used in Unity if required to provide a user interface.

Should be fun.

Want to help with the class definitions?

[Paparios]

El martes, 17 de octubre de 2017, 8:22:27 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:

>
> So its looks like I'll have to switch to creating a VR of SR (if you check the other threads). VR wasn't even dreamed of 100 years ago, but now it is common practice throughout the industry.
>
> A simple class structure that stands in for frames, events, mass, photon, 2d or 3d vectors, distance and the like. Simple really compared to what the games industry does. Kerbela does Newton quite well. So what would the SR version be called?
>
> I'll stick with C# as that can be used in Unity if required to provide a user interface.
>
> Should be fun.
>
> Want to help with the class definitions?

What is the point to create something that nobody working in relativity needs?
Besides that, your recognized ability to distinguish what Special Relativity
is or says, make all your effort just a waste of your and our time.

[RLH]

Sure. Go tell the VR generation that. I will ask you to make sure I have applied SR correctly. It is obviously beyond my grasp.

[Paparios]

Whatever the so called VR generation is, does not relates to Special
Relativity.

Besides that, there are countless internet tools and information to learn and
see how Special Relativity works.

Regarding you consulting me or others here about your "VR of SR", count me out.
You are just funny to read because, in my over 20 years in this group, you are
for sure strongly fighting for being top 1 in the "strange beyond believe
poster" category.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 17 października 2017 13:47:35 UTC+2 użytkownik Paparios napisał:

>
> What is the point to create something that nobody working in relativity needs?

Well, you're too stupid to understand, but apart of your
moronic bunch there are 6 billions of sane people.

[Dono,]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 4:22:27 AM UTC-7, RLH wrote:
>
>
> Want to help with the class definitions?

A psychiatrist would help. Also restarting taking your meds would. Why do you try to "disprove" STR when it is clear that you don't know basic arithmetic and basic physics?

[Bud Cargo]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> I think the corresponding equations are
>
> p = γ m u ṗ = γ m u̇
> = γ m a = m a/√(1 − u²/c²)
> a = ṗ √(1 − u²/c²)/m

You are again converging to ZEROOO!

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/15/17 7:17 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> [Taking d/dt of (γ m u), with u=u(t) and γ=γ(u)]

> [Am I correct in assuming that I can treat γ as a constant in the
> derivative even though technically it depends on u?]

No, you cannot assume that, because it simply isn't true: γ depends on t.

You are taking a derivative with respect to t, not u. The u dependence of γ is
only indirectly relevant; the t dependence of γ, via u(t), cannot be ignored.

Tom Roberts

[Bud Cargo]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 10/15/17 7:17 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> [Taking d/dt of (γ m u), with u=u(t) and γ=γ(u)]
>> [Am I correct in assuming that I can treat γ as a constant in the
>> derivative even though technically it depends on u?]

"technically"?? What an idiot this PointedEars, not seeing that he has no
y, but y(u). Even as such the notation is stupid, you can't have y=y(u),
it is absurd.

[RLH]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 1:04:54 PM UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> El martes, 17 de octubre de 2017, 8:50:26 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:
> > On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 12:47:35 PM UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> > > El martes, 17 de octubre de 2017, 8:22:27 (UTC-3), RLH escribió:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So its looks like I'll have to switch to creating a VR of SR (if you check the other threads). VR wasn't even dreamed of 100 years ago, but now it is common practice throughout the industry.
> > > >
> > > > A simple class structure that stands in for frames, events, mass, photon, 2d or 3d vectors, distance and the like. Simple really compared to what the games industry does. Kerbela does Newton quite well. So what would the SR version be called?
> > > >
> > > > I'll stick with C# as that can be used in Unity if required to provide a user interface.
> > > >
> > > > Should be fun.
> > > >
> > > > Want to help with the class definitions?
> > >
> > > What is the point to create something that nobody working in relativity needs?
> > > Besides that, your recognized ability to distinguish what Special Relativity
> > > is or says, make all your effort just a waste of your and our time.
> >
> > Sure. Go tell the VR generation that. I will ask you to make sure I have applied SR correctly. It is obviously beyond my grasp.
>
> Whatever the so called VR generation is, does not relates to Special
> Relativity.

The VR generation will expect SR to be visible as a working example in VR, i.e. an demonstrable implementation of it. Otherwise you will not be able to convince them it is true.

Things have moved on since simple pieces of paper. You are not supposed to just re-create those as a new display. The thinking has to evolve from that.

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/17/17 11:10 AM, Bud Cargo wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> [Taking d/dt of (γ m u), with u=u(t) and γ=γ(u)]

> Even as such the notation is stupid, you can't have y=y(u),
> it is absurd.

You merely display your ignorance and unfamiliarity with standard notation.

"(γ m u), with u=u(t) and γ=γ(u)" means that in the expression "(γ m u)", u is a
function of t and γ is a function of u. This is standard usage, and I didn't
think it required an explanation.

Tom Roberts

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thank you, I figured that out in the meantime. Do you agree with my correction?

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 17-okt-2017 om 13:47 schreef Paparios:

But see https://books.google.com/books?id=V1QoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT59

Dirk Vdm

[RLH]

"Video Games: An Introduction to the Industry By Andy Bossom, Ben Dunning"

See the section on VR SR.

[RLH]

Hmm. We all know the area of a triangle. it is (width+height)/2

So derivatives of straight lines is simple.
The other are approximations as the length of the near tangent approaches a straight line.

Now ask yourself, how big a sample is needed to get a closest approximate of the slope in the 'real' world.

And there we have the Uncertainty Principle. How do you measure both velocity(energy) with just one point? That needs 2 at least, position require only 1.

Sure we can know the range of p accurately, or v precisely but not both at the same time. We know it resides between, sample higher and sample lower, but we do NOT know where precisely in that range it is. It could be anywhere between high and low. Placing an origin at the centre is naïve IMHO.

[RLH]

On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 6:58:57 PM UTC+1, RLH wrote:
> Hmm. We all know the area of a triangle. it is (width+height)/2

between high and low. Placing an origin at the centre is naïve IMHO.

EDIT: (width*height)/2

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 17-okt-2017 om 19:58 schreef RLH:

> On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 6:15:51 PM UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 10/17/17 11:10 AM, Bud Cargo wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>> [Taking d/dt of (γ m u), with u=u(t) and γ=γ(u)]
>>> Even as such the notation is stupid, you can't have y=y(u), it is
>>> absurd.
>>
>> You merely display your ignorance and unfamiliarity with standard
>> notation.
>>
>> "(γ m u), with u=u(t) and γ=γ(u)" means that in the expression "(γ
>> m u)", u is a function of t and γ is a function of u. This is
>> standard usage, and I didn't think it required an explanation.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Hmm. We all know the area of a triangle. it is (width+height)/2

Right, an *we* all know the consequences of trolls
getting fed.

Dirk Vdm

[RLH]

By MIT.

[Paparios]

Nobody cares about convincing a group of people, who are more interested in
playing games in a computer, of the trueness of Special Relativity. The people
interested in modern physics do the right thing: they go to universities to
learn the stuff and getting degrees (usually a Ph.D. is the minimum level to
do research). The last LIGO detection of a kilonova, generated a paper with
10000 authors. All of them know they are verifying Einstein General Relativity,
and sure enough they also know the VR generation could not care less about
that stuff.

> Things have moved on since simple pieces of paper. You are not supposed to just re-create those as a new display. The thinking has to evolve from that.

This is not even wrong.