Special Relativity and momentum

[Crossbow]

For crying out loud 'SDG', do yourself a favor and stop providing the Forum with continual demonstrations of your own ignorance.

 

[SDG]

For crying out loud 'SDG', do yourself a favor and stop providing the Forum with continual demonstrations of your own ignorance.

Touché

 

[Ziggurat]

The equation is the start of finding out the ratio between g and g'.
What is conceptually wrong with that?

I've told you multiple times. The problem is not accounting for momentum conservation. g and g' are not constrained only by energy, but by momentum as well. But no constraint from momentum has been used. If you were to use one, you would discover that no solution is possible.

How many times must I repeat the fact that momentum must be conserved before you start to understand?

Here are some steps how to think about it.
There is a free electron and free proton stationary with each other, in an intergalactic space far away.
They are moving with g' in a GCI frame.
The attraction sparks and they will start to move towards each other.
The electron and proton have a barycenter inertial reference frame.
When electron undergoes the Bremsstrahlung, being caught in the proton orbit, recombined, it will emit a photon.
Now we have a hydrogen atom that has g Lorentz factor.
The hydrogen atom will keep falling towards the galaxy with increasing g.
The left side value will be bigger then the right side after some time.
The reverse process of recombination.

What is conceptually wrong with this?

If you reverse the process, then you need a photon to split the hydrogen atom into a proton and electron. Which 1) isn't a spontaneous transition, 2) isn't the scenario your paper describes since they think you can EMIT a photon to do this, not absorb it, 3) doesn't create a speed limit for hydrogen, and 4) can be done at any time, at any speed.

 

[SDG]

I've told you multiple times. The problem is not accounting for momentum conservation. g and g' are not constrained only by energy, but by momentum as well. But no constraint from momentum has been used. If you were to use one, you would discover that no solution is possible.

How many times must I repeat the fact that momentum must be conserved before you start to understand?
...

Let us just stay in the galaxy center inertial frame at the moment.

How is momentum conserved when the binding energy/mass of the falling hydrogen atom is changing with the increasing g.
Is there any effect/manifestation of the conservation of momentum?

Do we have an observational evidence of fast moving hydrogen atoms in space?

 

[Ziggurat]

Let us just stay in the galaxy center inertial frame at the moment.

How is momentum conserved when the binding energy/mass of the falling hydrogen atom is changing with the increasing g.
Is there any effect/manifestation of the conservation of momentum?

You never answered my question about how you want to handle gravity. Are we sticking with special relativity and treating weak field gravity as a force?

If so, the answer is simple. The atom is changing its momentum as it falls towards the galactic center, and the galaxy is changing its momentum as it falls towards the electron, and the changes in momentum are equal and opposite. The changing binding energy of the atom doesn't make any difference. It's part of the nonlinearity of momentum vs. velocity, but you don't need momentum to be linear with velocity in order to conserve it.

Do we have an observational evidence of fast moving hydrogen atoms in space?

What counts as fast? Your source claims a speed limit of about 51 km/s for atomic hydrogen. But we have observed galactic rotation curves significantly faster than that. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galax..._of_spiral_galaxy_Messier_33_(Triangulum).png
So we see atomic hydrogen specifically moving at velocities of greater than 100 km/s, which is direct disproof of their theory even aside from the obvious mistakes they made in its derivation.

 

[SDG]

You never answered my question about how you want to handle gravity. Are we sticking with special relativity and treating weak field gravity as a force?

If so, the answer is simple. The atom is changing its momentum as it falls towards the galactic center, and the galaxy is changing its momentum as it falls towards the electron, and the changes in momentum are equal and opposite. The changing binding energy of the atom doesn't make any difference. It's part of the nonlinearity of momentum vs. velocity, but you don't need momentum to be linear with velocity in order to conserve it.



What counts as fast? Your source claims a speed limit of about 51 km/s for atomic hydrogen. But we have observed galactic rotation curves significantly faster than that. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galax..._of_spiral_galaxy_Messier_33_(Triangulum).png
So we see atomic hydrogen specifically moving at velocities of greater than 100 km/s, which is direct disproof of their theory even aside from the obvious mistakes they made in its derivation.

Why we do not observe the Hydrogen line at 0.1c and upward speeds in the intergalactic space?
Hydrogen plasma fills the intergalactic space.

The relativity does not have an explanation for the Hydrogen lines boundaries that we observe.
The Hydrogen line should be observed well above and below what we measure.

 

[SDG]

...

What counts as fast? Your source claims a speed limit of about 51 km/s for atomic hydrogen. But we have observed galactic rotation curves significantly faster than that. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galax..._of_spiral_galaxy_Messier_33_(Triangulum).png
So we see atomic hydrogen specifically moving at velocities of greater than 100 km/s, which is direct disproof of their theory even aside from the obvious mistakes they made in its derivation.

The paper does not account for any external fields that might be contributing factors.
The concerning part is that the Hydrogen line is not observed at higher speeds.

 

[The Man]

Why we do not observe the Hydrogen line at 0.1c and upward speeds in the intergalactic space?
Hydrogen plasma fills the intergalactic space.

The relativity does not have an explanation for the Hydrogen lines boundaries that we observe.
The Hydrogen line should be observed well above and below what we measure.

The Intergalactic medium is warm to hot and ionized. It can be so hot in fact it gives off X-rays, that's how it can be detected.

Intergalactic Medium

ETA:

A bit of ideal gas calculations with mass of a proton (hydrogen nucleus) at 1 million degrees Kelvin makes the average particle speed of the hydrogen ions in the Intergalactic Medium only about 0.000524 c (157,363 km/s)

 

[Ziggurat]

Why we do not observe the Hydrogen line at 0.1c and upward speeds in the intergalactic space?

Why would we? What would propel hydrogen to 0.1c?

Falling into a galaxy won't do it. Escape velocity is root(2) times the orbital velocity, and you can't pick up more than escape velocity from falling back down. So for a galaxy with ~100 km/s rotational velocity, you should only get ~150 km/s from hydrogen falling into the galaxy from afar. And that's assuming no collisions on the way to slow it down. The speed of light is about 300,000 km/s. You can't get that kind of speed by falling into a galaxy from intergalactic space. You can't get even 10% of that speed. You can't even get 1% of that speed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am fully behind Einstein.

Light years behind.

Dave

 

[catsmate]

Agreed.
Something spontaneous in one frame has a cause in the other frame though.
The hydrogen atom changes potential energy for kinetic in the GCI frame.
This corresponds to no change in the rest frame. These PE to KE change creates a balance to no change in the rest frame.
Having said that the hydrogen atom changes binding energy (total mass) in the GCI frame on top of that.
Do you agree?
What is correspondent change in the rest frame?
A spontaneous event.

This is nonsensical drivel. You clearly have no comprehension of relativity, or indeed much of basic physics.

 

[SDG]

Why would we? What would propel hydrogen to 0.1c?

Falling into a galaxy won't do it. Escape velocity is root(2) times the orbital velocity, and you can't pick up more than escape velocity from falling back down. So for a galaxy with ~100 km/s rotational velocity, you should only get ~150 km/s from hydrogen falling into the galaxy from afar. And that's assuming no collisions on the way to slow it down. The speed of light is about 300,000 km/s. You can't get that kind of speed by falling into a galaxy from intergalactic space. You can't get even 10% of that speed. You can't even get 1% of that speed.

Fair enough.
There is plenty of observational evidence space hydrogen should move at faster speeds though.
There are intergalactic stars.
US 708 moves at 1200km/s.
There are stars that move at 8% of speed of light.

Stars gravity pools hydrogen with them. Stars have hydrogen wall.
Yet, we do not measure the hydrogen line at those speeds.

The eq3 is relativistic, there is nothing that prevents hydrogen recombination at g'=2 or any other value.
Why we do not see hydrogen recombine at higher speeds in the intergalactic space and emit the hydrogen line?

 

[SDG]

If we place a conducting wire between the anode and cathode prior to turning on the field and then turn on the field.
Left, do we predict any torquing on the wire in the rest frame?
Right, do we predict any torquing on the wire in the moving frame?

 

[Ziggurat]

Fair enough.
There is plenty of observational evidence space hydrogen should move at faster speeds though.
There are intergalactic stars.
US 708 moves at 1200km/s.
There are stars that move at 8% of speed of light.

Stars gravity pools hydrogen with them. Stars have hydrogen wall.
Yet, we do not measure the hydrogen line at those speeds.

The star we see moving at 0.08 c is in the center of our galaxy, and only moves that fast because of its close proximity to a black hole. It isn't some random star in the middle of nowhere with that sort of speed. There's a **** ton of gas and dust between us and it which obscures our view. We cannot do sensitive spectroscopy on it, the view isn't clear enough. There are no stars hanging out in deep space, far away from black holes, which are moving that fast.

The eq3 is relativistic, there is nothing that prevents hydrogen recombination at g'=2 or any other value.
Why we do not see hydrogen recombine at higher speeds in the intergalactic space and emit the hydrogen line?

Again, why would we? Stars will only move that fast near a supermassive black hole, and there are no supermassive black holes nearby. The closest one (Sagitarius A*) is, again, obscured by gas and dust which would prevent the kind of spectroscopy you're talking about. And the supermassive black holes at the center of other galaxies will be too far away for this to be observable.

And all of this is predicated on explicitly violating both conservation of momentum AND the principle of relativity. Which, if you're trying to disprove relativity, I can accept that you're going to allow for violating relativity. But you don't get to ignore momentum conservation.

 

[Ziggurat]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/TT9xXb2.png[/qimg]

If we place a conducting wire between the anode and cathode prior to turning on the field and then turn on the field.
Left, do we predict any torquing on the wire in the rest frame?
Right, do we predict any torquing on the wire in the moving frame?

Let's be precise. In the left frame, there is no torquing on the wire. In the right frame, there MIGHT be torquing on the wire, but there is no rotation of the wire. The distinction matters because angular momentum is not invariant, and the wire can change angular momentum in the right frame without rotating.

 

[SDG]

...

And all of this is predicated on explicitly violating both conservation of momentum AND the principle of relativity. Which, if you're trying to disprove relativity, I can accept that you're going to allow for violating relativity. But you don't get to ignore momentum conservation.

Can hydrogen recombine at g'=2 in the intergalactic space?
Would there be conditions for it? When for example two galaxies collide.
Why it would not recombine?

 

[SDG]

Let's be precise. In the left frame, there is no torquing on the wire. In the right frame, there MIGHT be torquing on the wire, but there is no rotation of the wire. The distinction matters because angular momentum is not invariant, and the wire can change angular momentum in the right frame without rotating.

Well, it contradicts this statement.
The setup is an isolated system.
The isolated system in the rest (inertial) frame, no change.
The isolated system in the moving (inertial) frame, no change.
Both are expected to be 0 and therefore they are expected to be invariant.

 

[Ziggurat]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/KqhhO0U.png[/qimg]

Well, it contradicts this statement.
The setup is an isolated system.
The isolated system in the rest (inertial) frame, no change.
The isolated system in the moving (inertial) frame, no change.
Both are expected to be 0 and therefore they are expected to be invariant.

You have confused "constant" for "invariant". These are not the same thing, at all. See if you can figure out the distinction, it is both incredibly basic and incredibly important. And if you can't understand that distinction, you have no hope of understanding anything else.

Furthermore, the wire is not an isolated system. The wire PLUS your capacitor PLUS whatever you use to charge your capacitor may together form an isolated system, but not the wire alone. And you asked about the wire.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can hydrogen recombine at g'=2 in the intergalactic space?
Would there be conditions for it? When for example two galaxies collide.
Why it would not recombine?

Everything in the universe is moving at gamma = 2 in some reference frame, so anything that can happen at all can happen at gamma = 2.

But galaxies don't collide at relative velocities of gamma = 2. They aren't moving that fast.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Can hydrogen recombine at g'=2 in the intergalactic space?
Would there be conditions for it? When for example two galaxies collide.
Why it would not recombine?

By g', SDG presumably means the "Lawrence" factor (sorry, I haven't stopped laughing about that paper's misspelling of "Lorentz") in an arbitrary inertial frame that is moving at velocity v' relative to the hydrogen atom.

Whether the hydrogen recombines has absolutely nothing to do with the inertial frame SDG chooses to use when thinking about the hydrogen. If the hydrogen recombines in its rest frame (which regards the hydrogen as being at rest), then it recombines in any other inertial frame. If the hydrogen does not recombine when viewed in SDG's preferred inertial frame, then it does not recombine in its rest frame.

For SDG to believe otherwise is akin to thinking the island of Greenland changes shape when he flips a page of his atlas.