Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

There was a time when you could discuss more or less real things with Bjarne, but now he is so far off into never-never land that it makes no sense to even try.

Waste of time.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

With respect to which observer?
The answer to that question is the core of SR. It is the relative velocity that appears in SR.

A and B do not move towards or away from each other but parallel to it each other .
A is for example the Earth.

Bjarne
And what is now left to the “curvature of space” near that body do you think?
RC
The body causes as much curvature as it did before. Its mass does not change.

So what you is saying is in fact that nothing of the mass of the Earth is caused by speed.
Why then calculate relative mass and KE increase due to speed
When it not counts for us, who then will that KE and mass count for ?
I don't understand you point RC
A spanish cow also not.

An observer travelling at a relative velocity with respect to the body will measure that the body acts as if the m in F = ma is larger than the rest mass of the body.

Misk Mask
What are you trying to say?
Respect to what body?
What “F”?
What have "F" with that to do ?
What “rest of the body”

Ohh no. You are asking unphysical questions about cartoons.

I am not, - the mass of a fast moving body do increase its relative mass.
This means that also the relative curvature of space is affected.
Therefore all the questions are relevant, -unless the mass/gravity increase is exported to the junkyard in a unknown dimension, off course.

Length contraction is basically that length is contracted in the direction of motion. In your 2D cartoons that is what s happening. There will be no length contraction perpendicular to the motion in your cartoons.

Right the equation reveals that the meter stick inside the spacecraft (according to the example) will be half the size when pointing towards the motion direction.
If the spacecraft staff would turn the meter stick 90 degree it should suddenly be the double size.
This fits very badly with Einstein postulate that the law of nature almost most be the same in all reference frames.
I am not sure that 2 dimensional reality is the way it works.
First... what is the evidence?
The fact must be, that a 2 dimensions mathematical perspective do not necessary proves that that nothing happens to the third or 4 dimension.

To understand such reality deformation it is not enough only to have access from a 2 dimension perspective.
THIS is in fact a problem.
Reality deformation is so strange that we should be carefully to make any final conclusion, based on that little knowledge we have, unless you off course shows the evidence that proves that the 3 rd dimension not is affected..

Your ignorance of SR means that you have neglected to state the relative velocities of observers A or B .

I thought you had understood this, both A and B is moving in the same direction and parallel.
The distance (in the image) is measured in that split second B had passed the Earth (observer A). Now B is moving ahead of the Earth and very fast.

Ahh I can see Microsoft have made better calculator in windows 7. I will try to put some values on it when I get some time here.
Maybe some of you will contribute…………

I want to know the deformation factors of “B’s” reality….

The Mass/KE increase factor relative to
The length contraction factor
The time deformation factor

It could for example be by speed > c minus 3 to 10 m/s….

 

[MRC_Hans]

Maybe some of you will contribute…………

I want to know the deformation factors of “B’s” reality….

The Mass/KE increase factor relative to
The length contraction factor
The time deformation factor

It could for example be by speed > c minus 3 to 10 m/s….

Why on Earth should anybody contribute? You will misinterpret and misuse it anyway.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

A and B do not move towards or away from each other but parallel to it each other .

In that case there is no length contraction whatsoever as seen from either A or B.

Right the equation reveals that the meter stick inside the spacecraft (according to the example) will be half the size when pointing towards the motion direction.

Only when seen from outside the spacecraft. Inside the spacecraft the meter stick will be the same size as always.

You do not really get relativity concept in the theory of relativity, do you?

 

[Bjarne]

In that case there is no length contraction whatsoever as seen from either A or B.

Only when seen from outside the spacecraft. Inside the spacecraft the meter stick will be the same size as always.

You do not really get relativity concept in the theory of relativity, do you?

This sounds correct.
But what I am fishing for is contraction due to increasing mass.
This must happen as well.
Otherwise there would be no way the Universe could you end up as a dot, or shrink / expand.


Vacas aquí hablan español este es un gran problema

 

[Paul]

So what you is saying is in fact that nothing of the mass of the Earth is caused by speed.

Which version of the term mass are you using?

Why then calculate relative mass and KE increase due to speed

Only the relativistic mass increases with velocity and kinetic energy comes from movement.

Misk Mask
What are you trying to say?

If it was a test of whether you know anything about relativity, you just failed.

Respect to what body?

The one being observed.

What “F”?

The F in F=ma

What have "F" with that to do ?

It have the force with that to do.

What “rest of the body”

Rest Mass of the Body

Are there any words you do not understand in this context?

I thought you had understood this, both A and B is moving in the same direction and parallel.

That's not what you drew or said.

It could for example be by speed > c minus 3 to 10 m/s….

It could be by speed is greater than the speed of light minus 3 to 10 metres per second?

Really?

 

[Paul]

This sounds correct.

That's very generous of you.

If you think that's correct, why did you get it completely wrong before?

But what I am fishing for is contraction due to increasing mass.

Don't fish, ask.

Why do you think more mass would cause contraction?

This must happen as well.

If you think it must happen, you must have an idea why.

Otherwise there would be no way the Universe could you end up as a dot, or shrink / expand.

How about a change in density?

Vacas aquí hablan español este es un gran problema

No es para las vacas

 

[MRC_Hans]

In that case there is no length contraction whatsoever as seen from either A or B.


Only when seen from outside the spacecraft. Inside the spacecraft the meter stick will be the same size as always.

You do not really get relativity concept in the theory of relativity, do you?

Oh, he just thinks it means he can relate it to any silly idea in his head.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

This sounds correct.

At least!

But what I am fishing for is contraction due to increasing mass.
This must happen as well.

No. Increasing mass due to relativistic speeds has no connection to contraction.

Otherwise there would be no way the Universe could you end up as a dot, or shrink / expand.

Try not to think about that; it is way over your head.

- Or if you must, think about this: How much space does matter really take up? how much of even an atom is empty space?

Vacas aquí hablan español este es un gran problema

Veremos que tambien tienes poco español.

Hans

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.science27.com/forum/SR1.jpg
http://www.science27.com/forum/SR2.jpg

Then the SR result is easy:
Observer B measures no length contraction or time dilation or mass increase.
Observer A can measure length contraction, time dilation and mass increase. There are practical problems with your cartoon with this because A is looking along the direction of motion. Thus A cannot actually measure these. Put A perpendicular to the object so that it passes in front of her.
Or use the typical SR textbook example of Alice in a train passes Bob in a station at a velocity near the speed of light.

So what you is saying is in fact that nothing of the mass of the Earth is caused by speed.

Correct.

Why then calculate relative mass and KE increase due to speed
When it not counts for us, who then will that KE and mass count for ?
I don't understand you point RC

Because we can.
Actually people do not usually calculate "relative mass".

I want to know the deformation factors of “B’s” reality….

There s none. B's velocity relative to the object is zero. Plug zero relative velocity into the Lorentz transformation equations of Special Relativity and you get no changes.

That is obvious to anyone who knoe anything aout SR.

 

[Bjarne]

The F in F=ma

I am not discussion Force.

That's not what you drew or said.

That is what I drew and wrote.

Why do you think more mass would cause contraction?

What you think would happen the Earth when the Universe would shrink to a dot.

There are practical problems with your cartoon with this because A is looking along the direction of motion.

He is not; He see B passing by the Earth in the same direction as the Earth.

Observer A can measure length contraction, time dilation and mass increase

.
What are you blap blap about?
Observer A does not move with increased speed, in that exsample hence there are no effect on his reference frame.

Because we can.

And this is why some of the mass and gravity of the earth is due to speed.

Actually people do not usually calculate "relative mass".

But they do calculate relative KE and mass increase.

 

[Bjarne]

I have often read that GR and Quantum Physic is incompatible
What is the problem(s)?

 

[Paul]

I am not discussion Force.

You asked what F, I told you.

That is what I drew and wrote.

Wrong, you initially only said that A and B had the same velocity.

What you think would happen the Earth when the Universe would shrink to a dot.

Everything would become incredible dense.

What are you blap blap about?

Try to grow up and pay attention; take the fact that you obviously don't understand what's going on as a sign that more research is needed on your part, not more tantrums.

Observer A does not move with increased speed, in that exsample hence there are no effect on his reference frame.

In the second example B increases speed so A measures different results.

 

[Paul]

I have often read that GR and Quantum Physic is incompatible
What is the problem(s)?

That is either a lie or you have no business reading books that do not have pictures of kittens in them.

 

[Bjarne]

You asked what F, I told you

RC brought that up not me.

Wrong, you initially only said that A and B had the same velocity

And this was not the point.

In the second example B increases speed so A measures different results.

Right different mass / gravity results

That is either a lie or you have no business reading books that do not have pictures of kittens in them.

Try to google: incompatibel general relativity Quantum physic

 

[Bjarne]

Hos much is space bending at the surface of the Sun

 

[Reality Check]

Why?

 

[Bjarne]

You will see why

 

[Reality Check]

Why can a genius like yourself not work it out for yourself?

 

[Bjarne]

It would be much easier if you did it