>>> In article
>> .com> Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> writes:>
>> e:
>>>>> In article <01935683-b3a7-46f8-b3cd-14137abcc...@2g2000hsn.googlegrou=
>> ps.c=3D
>>>>> Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com> writes:>
>>>>>> On Jun 27, 6:50=3D3DA0am, "Tim"
q.con> wrote:>>>>>>> "Jerry Kraus"
yahoo.com> wrote in message>
>>>>>>> Do some research into how a GPS works. You'll find that the algor=
>> ithm=3D
>>>> s us=3D3D
>>>>>> ed
>>>>>>> to calculate position take Relativity into account. If they did n=
>> ot t=3D
>>>> he
>>>>>>> readings would be inaccurate enough to render the system useless
>
>>>>>> Relativity provides a hint that there will be problems. =3DA0The ex=
>> act
>>>>>> values used are determined empirically. =3DA0The predictive value o=
>> f
>>>>>> relativity has always been grossly exaggerated for political/
>>>>>> propaganda purposes.
>
>>>>> Evidence for the "determined empirically" assertion,
>>>>> if you will:
>
>>>>> -- cary
>
>
>>>> This is in particle accelerators:
>
>>>> "Graham will talk on the role of approximations and empiricism in
>>>> predicting parameters of radiological importance at accelerator
>>>> facilities...
>
>>>> In many situations, predictions of sufficient accuracy can be obtained
>>>> by using simple approximations or empirical formulae to describe the
>>>> real physical situation. .."
>
>>>
>
>>> This is talking about predicting the radiation that emerges,
>>> and what safety measures may therefore be required.
>
>>> It has exactly NOTHING to do with the role of relativity
>>> in designing particle accelerators -- relativistic calculations
>>> are necessary to calculate the changes in timing of the
>>> magnetic pulses as the particles gain mass as they
>>> approach the speed of light. =A0
>
>>> This article has no more to do with that than it
>>> has to do with fudge sundaes.
>
>>> -- cary
>
>>>> In GPS applications the discrepancies are empirically observed. =A0If
>>>> not, no compensations would be made, relativity or no relativity.- Hide=
>> Â quoted text -
>
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> You're confusing kinetic energy increases with relativity. Â Of course,
>> more energy is needed to control more rapidly moving particles. Â This
>> is Newtonian mechanics, not relativity.
>
> Incorrect. Â I said nothing about the amount of energy supplied
> by the magnets. Â I'm talking about timing the pulses.
>
> In Newtonian physics, acceleration will be constant
> if a constant force is applied. Â This would not change the timing.
>
> In relativistic mechanics, the mass increases with velocity,
> and therefore a constant force does not result in a constant
> acceleration. Â Thus the timing of the pulses must
> be adjusted, or the thing will fall out of phase.
>
> If these corrections are not applied, the accelerator
> will not function correctly.
>
> -- cary- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/rs98ma1/rs98ma1.stm
Mass, Momentum and Energy In Newtonian Mechanics
Curt Renshaw
680 America’s Cup Cove, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005 USA
ph: (770) 751-9481 fax: (770) 751-9829 email: crenshaw@
teleinc.com
ABSTRACT
Terminology is very important in our interpretation and presentaion of
concepts. For example, we should not too loosely use terms such as
mass increase when we are actually discussing secondary concepts such
as change in momentum or energy, or transformations between reference
frames. It is clear that the "rest mass" of an object may be
determined only by one's being in the rest frame of the object.
Alternatively, if we are in a frame in which that object is moving, we
can measure secondary quantities, such as the energy it imaprts when
colliding with a mass stationary in our reference frame. With this
information, we can then calculate backwards, using whatever
transforms and rules we have agreed on, and derive an inferred mass
for the moving object. It is important to realize that different
transforms will result in different inferred values for the mass of
the object as determined from our referenc frame.
.....
......
Conclusions
By carefully deriving equations for energy and momentum across
reference frames, we have demonstrated that an increase in energy
cannot necessarily be associated with an increase in mass. Since any
object will always have the same mass in any frame in which it is at
rest, it would appear that the concept of mass increase is untenable.
Using the same methodology, we demonstrated why clocks accelerated out
of their rest frame of calibration undergo slowing due to a change in
system energy. We also showed that clocks constructed by the same
method in different IFRs will keep synchronous time, without regard to
their relative velocities. These two derivations indicate that the
concept of time dilation—an actual change in the dimension of time, is
unecessary and untenable. Finally, we demonstrated that the apparent
mass increase seen in particle accelerators is due to a secondary
scaling of magnetic fields, and not due to an actual change in the
mass of the particles, supporting our earlier claims. This is also
true when we consider the kinetic energy imparted on a target by such
a high speed particle. The final result is that measurements of
secondary quantities such as the slowing of a clock, the kinetic
energy imparted in a collision or the strength of a magnetic field
required to accelerate a charged particle can not in and of themselves
say anything conclusive about the nature of primary quantities such as
mass and time. Only by isolating the primary quantity of interest and
making measurements on that quantity directly can we infer any change
in such a quantity. These tests are very difficult to devise and carry
out.
References:
Bohm, D., The Special Theory of Relativity, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, New York, 1989, p83
