Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Quote

The Lorentz factor or Lorentz term is the factor by which time, length, and relativistic mass change for an object while that object is moving. The expression appears in several equations in special relativity, and it arises in derivations of the Lorentz transformations. The name originates from its earlier appearance in Lorentzian electrodynamics – named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

Are there any particular aspects that you need more explanation of?

Posted

What is happening to the quantity that is acceleration when the object is close to light speed ? I mean, why when we push on the acceleration pedal we actually slow down, close to light speed ?

Posted

It depends what frame of reference you measure the acceleration in.

For example, if you are in a rocket that is being accelerated at a steady 1g (comfortable) then without relativity, you would reach the speed of light in about a year.

But what actually happens is that the people back on Earth would see the rate at which your speed increases (your apparent acceleration) decrease. You can think of this being because your "relativistic mass" increases (and so the force of the rockets have less effect). Or you can say it is because velocities do not add linearly in relativity (because the Lorentz factor needs to be taken into account): http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel.html

However, in your space ship, you would still feel 1g and so think you are undergoing constant acceleration.

Actually calculating acceleration in relativity is slightly more complex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)

Posted

I am not an expert on this, someone else will correct me.

What I understand is that the Lorentz transformation gives you what on observer measures when observing a moving object. It does not give you anything about your own motion (because motion is relative). So answering your question, no, you will be accelerating all the time.

But some observer far away will measure things bizarrely, like your mass increasing and your velocity never reaching Speed Of Light. Reversely, you yourself accelerating and looking back will measure the observer increasing in mass and never receding from you at velocity more than SOL.

Posted

So i will, in my referential (rocket), go over the speed of light ?

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

I am not an expert on this, someone else will correct me.

What I understand is that the Lorentz transformation gives you what on observer measures when observing a moving object. It does not give you anything about your own motion (because motion is relative). So answering your question, no, you will be accelerating all the time.

But some observer far away will measure things bizarrely, like your mass increasing and your velocity never reaching Speed Of Light. Reversely, you yourself accelerating and looking back will measure the observer increasing in mass and never receding from you at velocity more than SOL.

You cant get corrected, under the current theory, you are 100% right.

That's my problem: 

image.png.dc33301187e19a8f3b466f56b66bd4b3.png

 

unless, something, i don't understand, E <> Imaginery

I took it from his own work:

link deleted

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MaximThibodeau said:

So i will, in my referential (rocket), go over the speed of light ?

No.

1 hour ago, MaximThibodeau said:

That's my problem: 

I don't know where you got that equation from and the right hand part is not equal to the middle part. 

1 hour ago, MaximThibodeau said:

unless, something, i don't understand, E <> Imaginery

It looks like you don't understand mathematics.

[math]1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}[/math]is always positive so you can't get an imaginary result. So where do you get [math]I^x[/math] from, and what is x?

1 hour ago, MaximThibodeau said:

I took it from his own work

You will need to be more specific. I am not going to read 165 pages to find something you appear to have misunderstood.

And why not find a better source? I have always found Einstein's writings on the subject to rather obtuse.

Edited by Strange
Posted
1 minute ago, MaximThibodeau said:

Lets take a look to my theory:

Not unless you present it here, in the Speculations forum, no.

However, as you have no model and no evidence you do not even have a hypothesis, never mind a theory. You have some incoherent drivel and some nice pictures of cats. This is not science.

Posted (edited)

Now, how about explaining where your equation ([math]\frac{m c^2}{i^x}[/math]) came from?

Edited by Strange
Posted
1 hour ago, MaximThibodeau said:

I took it from his own work:

!

Moderator Note

Posting to advertise your own work (in a link) is against the rules; you need to post any material under consideration here, and discussions like this take place in speculations.

 
Posted
1 minute ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Posting to advertise your own work (in a link) is against the rules; you need to post any material under consideration here, and discussions like this take place in speculations.

 

Sorry about my link, i did not know, but is this note is about the link of Einstein work too?

Posted
2 minutes ago, MaximThibodeau said:

Sorry about my link, i did not know, but is this note is about the link of Einstein work too?

!

Moderator Note

I removed links you identified as being to your work. If you want to link to Einstein's papers (e.g. "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"), that would be fine.

 
Posted
1 minute ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

I removed links you identified as being to your work

 

So now, with all those links remove, what still wrong? could i return to the main thread again

Posted
14 minutes ago, MaximThibodeau said:

So now, with all those links remove, what still wrong? could i return to the main thread again

!

Moderator Note

What main thread? I didn't split this off from another discussion. I moved it here, because you are claiming mainstream physics is wrong.

 
Posted
7 hours ago, Strange said:

Now, how about explaining where your equation (mc2ix ) came from?

No? Not willing to explain? 

Maybe you should ask a mod to close this thread if f your are unwilling to discuss it. 

Posted
1 hour ago, MaximThibodeau said:

I came from me, but i wont argue again without anyone watching! :(

!

Moderator Note

I don't know what that means. Nobody watching?

If you refuse to address this, the thread will be closed

 
Posted
1 hour ago, MaximThibodeau said:

I came from me, but i wont argue again without anyone watching! :(

That's OK, I'm watching....I often get a laugh out of the number of Tom, Dick, and Harry's that come to a public forum, claiming that they have shown Einstein to be wrong. :D

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.