Does a spinning disk gain relativistic mass

[Strange]

 

You cannot just wish away this transfer of momentum of the passing wheels.

 

You want to bet?

[514void]

I don't see how the disks would know to speed up and slow down,

the only force that is acting on them is the torque from a motor.

Edited February 25, 2014 by 514void

[Strange]

I don't see how the disks would know to speed up and slow down,

the only force that is acting on them is the torque from a motor.

 

It is not clear what you mean (as usual).

 

The rotational speed is (obviously) driven by the motors.

 

The movement up and down the container is driven by springs or whatever it is you are using.

 

How can you say you do not know what causes them to speed up and slow down when it is your scenario?

[J.C.MacSwell]

I don't see how the disks would know to speed up and slow down,

the only force that is acting on them is the torque from a motor.

The force we are discussing to move the mass equivalent of energy is really really small. it is not something that would normally be of any significance.

[514void]

 

It is not clear what you mean (as usual).

 

The rotational speed is (obviously) driven by the motors.

 

The movement up and down the container is driven by springs or whatever it is you are using.

 

How can you say you do not know what causes them to speed up and slow down when it is your scenario?

o, I thought that the issue was the transfer of spin from one set of disks to the other,

during this phase the only force that is acting on them is the torque from the motors.

I don't see how any translatory momentum is transferred as well.

I don't suppose that this is explainable.

The force we are discussing to move the mass equivalent of energy is really really small. it is not something that would normally be of any significance.

probably, but if it can accelerate a craft to faster speeds than conventional rockets, maybe it is worthwhile pursuing.

[Strange]

I don't see how any translatory momentum is transferred as well.

You are transferring mass. And therefore momentum.

 

 

I don't suppose that this is explainable.

 

It is perfectly explainable. All you need to do is understand that energy and mass are equivalent. There is no "magic" to spinning disks or relativistic mass. It is exactly the same as tossing weights between the two (non-rotating) wheels as they pass. Clearly, then, all that is happening is that mass is moving backwards and forwards with no net change in position or velocity.

[514void]

ok, but you still seem to think that there is a magical force that carries translatory momentum from one set of spinning disks and the other.

Otherwise you could easily state where the forces act on the disks during this phase.

Edited February 25, 2014 by 514void

[Strange]

ok, but you still seem to think that there is a magical force that carries translatory momentum from one set of spinning disks and the other.

 

You are transferring mass-energy from one to another, if there is no change in velocity there must be a change in momentum (alternatively, if there is no change in momentum then there must be a change in velocity; either way the net result is the same).

 

 

Otherwise you could easily state where the forces act on the disks during this phase.

 

As you are claiming to defy the laws of physics, perhaps you should be providing an analysis of the forces involved.

[514void]

during the spin transfer phase:

there is a change in momentum from one spinning disk to the other due to relativistic mass, they don't change velocity.

during the velocity changing phase.

the one with more relativistic mass will act upon the container with more force, changing its velocity.

 

what laws of physics does this defy?

[J.C.MacSwell]

during the spin transfer phase:

there is a change in momentum from one spinning disk to the other due to relativistic mass, they don't change velocity.

during the velocity changing phase.

the one with more relativistic mass will act upon the container with more force, changing its velocity.

 

what laws of physics does this defy?

The rigorous part of physics is what you are missing. You are ignoring seemingly insignificant details on one side and perceiving them as significant effects on the other.

[514void]

I have analysed that part that you think I am ignoring.

The part where transferring energy to the spin of something.

I am using relativity and especially the part about the no preferred frame.

For if there is no preferred frame, how can any object change their velocity when torque is applied.

 

The conservation of momentum law was stated by Issac Newton who was an avid absolutist.

His argument against relativity was based on the fact that for every object there is an absolute spin for it to speed up or slow down against,

and since relativity isn't absolutism I just found the parts that don't match in both theories and exploited it.

So for this to work, relativity must be correct.

For it to not work, absolutism must be correct.

[swansont]

during the spin transfer phase:

there is a change in momentum from one spinning disk to the other due to relativistic mass, they don't change velocity.

 

If you mean change as in transfer, this can't happen without a force being exerted between the two. If you mean there is a difference, yes. It doesn't matter.

 

 

during the velocity changing phase.

the one with more relativistic mass will act upon the container with more force, changing its velocity.

 

Yes, for the same acceleration you need more force if there is more mass. But you continue to ignore that this also means the force on the container is larger, meaning the container reacts to the force as well, keeping the CoM stationary. You're comparing the wrong things.

 

what laws of physics does this defy?

 

Newton's third law. You're hung up on relativity, which only serves to complicate the problem. The failure is in applying first-semester physics to the problem, compounded by thinking that relativistic mass is some kind of magic.

[514void]

how does the energy transfer phase change the velocity of the disks?

I am going to use alternative current so there is no net electron mass change.

Yes, for the same acceleration you need more force if there is more mass. But you continue to ignore that this also means the force on the container is larger, meaning the container reacts to the force as well, keeping the CoM stationary. You're comparing the wrong things.

but it also makes the container accelerate in one direction.

and since the only force on the container is during the velocity transfer phase, it would continue to accumulate velocity.

the CoM can be stationary in any accelerating frame you like, why does it matter?

Newton's third law. You're hung up on relativity, which only serves to complicate the problem. The failure is in applying first-semester physics to the problem, compounded by thinking that relativistic mass is some kind of magic.

If relativistic mass is the reason might work, I think that maybe I shouldn't just use newtonian physics to understand it.

Edited February 26, 2014 by 514void

[swansont]

 

If relativistic mass is the reason might work, I think that maybe I shouldn't just use newtonian physics to understand it.

 

Despite the fact that several physicists are telling you that it won't.

[514void]

without any explanation of how any force that would stop it working would manifest.

[Strange]

how does the energy transfer phase change the velocity of the disks?

 

Why would you think it does?

 

At this stage you are transferring energy (and the equivalent mass) and therefore momentum.

 

 

I am going to use alternative current so there is no net electron mass change.

 

Why do you think that is relevant? And haven't you already been told that there is no net transfer of electrons with either DC or AC?

 

 

but it also makes the container accelerate in one direction.

 

Why would you think that? Please present a mathematical analysis that demonstrates this.

 

 

and since the only force on the container is during the velocity transfer phase, it would continue to accumulate velocity.

 

Why do you only consider one change in velocity?

 

If relativistic mass is the reason might work

 

It isn't. Why do you think that relativistic mass is different from any other in this respect?

without any explanation of how any force that would stop it working would manifest.

 

You have had the explanation spelled out to you repeatedly.

Edited February 26, 2014 by Strange

[514void]

 

Why would you think it does?

 

At this stage you are transferring energy (and the equivalent mass) and therefore momentum.

If there is no change in velocity, then it is working as I have invisioned.

 

Why do you think that is relevant? And haven't you already been told that there is no net transfer of electrons with either DC or AC?

because you were saying that it is like throwing mass.

 

Why would you think that? Please present a mathematical analysis that demonstrates this.

there is more force applied to the heavier object than the lighter object by the container.

f=ma

 

 

Why do you only consider one change in velocity?

because the only forces on the container is when the disks are accelerated back towards the center by the container.

 

 

It isn't. Why do you think that relativistic mass is different from any other in this respect?

because it is gained by the disk without changing its velocity.

 

 

 

You have had the explanation spelled out to you repeatedly.

That some force is felt somewhere in the system,

but this force doesn't seem to change any parts of the system?

 

You say that moving energy from one disk to the other is like moving mass from one disk to the other, and this mass moving is not accompanied by any change in velocity.

This doesn't cancel any acceleration of the system, it is part of how it works.

Edited February 26, 2014 by 514void

[Strange]

If there is no change in velocity, then it is working as I have invisioned.

 

There is a change in momentum, though.

 

 

because you were saying that it is like throwing mass.

 

Yes, you are transferring mass (and therefore momentum) from one wheel to the other. This has nothing to do with electrons, AC or DC.

 

because the only forces on the container is when the disks are accelerated back towards the center by the container.

 

And when you transfer mass (momentum) from one wheel to the other.

 

I give up...

[514void]

yes, when the relativistic mass is transferred from one wheel to the other without changing their velocity and without any forces on any other parts of the system, that is why it would work.

[Strange]

yes, when the relativistic mass is transferred from one wheel to the other without changing their velocity and without any forces on any other parts of the system, that is why it would work.

 

That is exactly why it doesn't work.

[514void]

it is why it does work.

 

Momentum of the relativistic mass is transferred from the downwards to the upwards without the "equal and opposite" reaction.

The container reverses the disks so that they can cycle again (this is done with the "equal and opposite reaction" so it is like the momentum is realised).

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by 514void

[J.C.MacSwell]

it is why it does work.

 

Momentum of the relativistic mass is transferred from the downwards to the upwards without the "equal and opposite" reaction.

The container reverses the disks so that they can cycle again (this is done with the "equal and opposite reaction" so it is like the momentum is realised).

 

The momentum of that energy cannot simply be transferred, complete with reversal of sign, without an equal but opposite reaction. You cannot simply turn momentum on and off at your convenience. There must be an exchange, and the balance maintained, at all times.

[514void]

this would imply that there is a preferred frame, that is a bold claim.

[Strange]

this would imply that there is a preferred frame, that is a bold claim.

 

Of course it wouldn't. Quite the reverse, in fact, because it is true whatever the initial state of motion of the container.

Momentum of the relativistic mass is transferred from the downwards to the upwards without the "equal and opposite" reaction.

 

 

Wrong.

[swansont]

 

Momentum of the relativistic mass is transferred from the downwards to the upwards without the "equal and opposite" reaction

 

Why not claim that the wheels spin up spontaneously? As long as you are going to ignore conservation laws, why not go big?