[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

Thu Nov 1 04:19:07 CET 2018

Hello Ronald.

Interesting question! Did you read my Email from Mon, Oct 29, to "General
Physics". I think you will find in that book many reasoning, equations and
calculations about supposed mass-increase.
The main point of view in this book is, that in our solar system we must
NOT use the orbital velocity of the planets in
the Lorentz Transformation of Mass-Energy, but the ROOT MEAN SQUARE
VELOCITY of our solar system.
The Kinetic Energy originating from this VRMS is converted into mass, into
orbital energy and probably also in heat.
This VRMS velocity (12.3 km/sec)  is related to many constants. It is the
base of the Gravitational Constant of Newton.
*Ronald: CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME IF MY MESSAGE WITH FILE ATTACHED WAS
RECEIVED BY YOU? *
*I also like to know if the files can be read properly: I used many **equations
(constructed by using MathType). *
*Also I like to know if the **Excel-files** can be viewed properly. **I can
not check myself if it was send properly to everybody. *

*Nobody did respond on it; so, I am not sure if it is just ignored or not
received. On the other hand: I know it is a lot of information. maybe,
members need more time to view.*
Please have a look at the content view of my rewritten book “Mind boggling
Gravitation. Applying the Lorentz Transformation of Mass-Energy” For the
content view and the link to the book see:

https://www.academia.edu/37665240/Summary_Mind_boggling_Gravitation._Applying_the_Lorentz_Transformation_of_Mass-Energy_._Gravitational_Constant_GN_and_VRMS_12278_m_s
(if not accessible use: http://bit.ly/2P8sv02 ) IT IS ALL FOR FREE🏦👍☺
*MESSAGE ALSO TO OTHER MEMBERS: *
Please put the name of the addressed person in the first line of your
respons and also put your name at the end as the sender.
The Emails from Carl Johnson are always a kind of puzzle: For whom was it
meant, what was the related question.
It seems: Carl answers the question *in respons to the sender ONLY*, so
other members can't view the answer of Carl: I just read the answers from
Tom and others.
Please Carl: check if you include *physics at tuks.nl <physics at tuks.nl>* in
the adres line, if your answer must reach the whole group.

Best regards.
Ruud Loeffen.

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:26 PM Ronald Heath <rheath at rhwebco.com> wrote:

> Hi All;
>
>    I have a related question for you. Since the universe is expanding,
> that means that all matter is growing larger. Since the tools that we
> use are also getting larger, how would we notice? Is this why fossils
> from millions of years ago seem larger than today?
>
> Ron
>
> On 10/31/18 4:00 AM, physics-request at tuks.nl wrote:
> > Send Physics mailing list submissions to
> >       physics at tuks.nl
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >       http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >       physics-request at tuks.nl
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >       physics-owner at tuks.nl
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Physics digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >     1. Re: Physics Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1 (carmam at tiscali.co.uk)
> >     2. Re: Physics Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1 (carmam at tiscali.co.uk)
> >     3. Re: Physics Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1 (kostadinos at aol.com)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:28:20 +0000 (GMT)
> > From: "carmam at tiscali.co.uk" <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>
> > To: <cj at mb-soft.com>,  <physics at tuks.nl>
> > Subject: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1
> > Message-ID:
> >       <25512775.192811540906100758.JavaMail.defaultUser at defaultHost>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Carl. I think that you have missed the point. Einstein did not say or
> even infer that these relativistic effects were not real until 1921 when he
> admitted that they were not real (but nobody took any notice of this rather
> startling announcement). Take the case of mass increase. Page 44 "General
> Results Of The Theory" gives the details. Mass increase (kinetic energy in
> the book) stops any vehicle from reaching or surpassing the speed of light
> - you know the story, an increase of mass needs an increase of force to get
> the same reaction, so infinite mass needs infinite force...Quote "The
> velocity must therefore always remain less than c, however great may be the
> energies used to produce the acceleration."Einstein is here describing what
> he acknowledges to be a real effect. This itself is however wrong, as shown
> here : -This is an excerpt from my web page which unfortunately is
> unavailable until I find a new host web site.Imagine now a space rocket,
> which is propelled by ejecting a small amount of matter (the rocket
> exhaust) at high speed from the rear, so imparting a thrust in the opposite
> direction. We will assume that the exhaust velocity is 3,000 m/s and the
> mass of the rocket is 30,000 Kg (very similar to NASA's Mercury-Redstone
> rockets). Now we can use the Lorentz transformation to find the new mass.
> The velocity between exhaust and rocket is 3000 m/s, so :-
> >
> > m = m0 / sqrt( 1 - ( v / c )^2)
> > m = mass of rocket at velocity v as measured by the essential observer
> > (Remember that Einstein's observer, properly called the essential
> observer, is always at rest relative to the motive force. In this example
> therefore, the essential observer is in the same frame as the rocket
> exhaust).
> > m0 = 30,000 Kg (proper mass of rocket or rest mass when v = 0)
> > v = 3,000 m/s - rocket's velocity relative to the exhaust
> > c = 300,000,000 m/s
> > m = 30000 / sqrt( 1 - (3000 / 3e8)^2) = 30000.0000015000000001125 Kg
> >
> > The mass increase is therefore 0.0000015 Kg or 0.0015 gram which is
> simply not measurable compared to 30,000 kilograms. For all intents and
> purposes the mass increase is zero. A further point to note here is that
> the mass increase is measured against the exhaust which is providing the
> motive force, and no matter what the velocity of the rocket when measured
> against its starting point (or anything else for that matter), the velocity
> between rocket and exhaust never changes, so the rocket mass is always
> 30,000.0000015 Kg (disregarding the loss of mass due to fuel used). In
> other words, the mass is fixed at 30,000.0000015 Kg for the values used
> above between rocket and exhaust, and the extra 0.0000015 Kg is an
> insignificant amount. As there is no significant mass increase with
> velocity, and certainly no accumulative mass increase, there is no
> theoretical upper limit to the velocity of the rocket.
> > Regarding the muons.The velocity of the muons is (as far as I am aware)
> only measured in the iron block above the scintillator (if I am wrong on
> this please show me a reference to the technique used). This block slows
> down (or stops) the muons. As the muons move through the iron they
> experience a drag force. Assume that the force is of known fixed strength
> while the muon is in motion, and stops when the muon stops. So how do we
> determine how far it travels before stopping?  This can be done using
> energy conservation equations.The muon strikes the iron with a certain
> amount of kinetic energy.  As it passes through, this energy gets steadily
> converted to potential energy according to the equation : - E(p) = f * d
> (potential energy = force * distance).If the muon comes to a stop, this
> means the original kinetic energy of the muon has been fully converted.
> Kinetic energy is given by the equation : - E(k) = 0.5 m * V^2 .As the
> stopping distance is known, the initial velocity can be found.  IE it can
> be determined how fast the muon was going when it hit the iron. The 0.5m *
> v^2 equation however is for classical mechanics.  There is another equation
> that is used in relativity.  It is of the form :- E(k) = E(relativistic) -
> E(rest), or E - Eo = m*c^2 - mo * c^2 .Where mo is the rest mass and m is
> the relativistic mass.  m = mo / sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)), i.e. the rest mass
> multiplied by the Lorentz Transform.For low velocities there is basically
> no difference in these two formulae, but for high velocities, the velocity
> calculated by the classical formula can allow v>c.  Whereas the
> relativistic formula ensures v<c.The above is simplified.  In reality the
> force experienced won’t be constant but a complicated function of
> velocity.  The actual function used is the Bethe Formula.
> > Tom Hollings.
> >
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181030/8c2dc8b1/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:14:56 +0000 (GMT)
> > From: "carmam at tiscali.co.uk" <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>
> > To: <cj at mb-soft.com>,  <physics at tuks.nl>
> > Subject: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1
> > Message-ID:
> >       <3260019.196071540912496437.JavaMail.defaultUser at defaultHost>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Carl, the first point that I was and am making is that Einstein DID
> believe that his relativity predictions were correct and actual
> occurrences, as shown by his chapter which I referenced. You said
> otherwise, and that the rest of the physics world were misinterpreting
> him.The second point is about muons. You brought up the subject of muons, I
> merely proposed a different answer to yours. I do know about Bremsstrahlung
> radiation and muon decay, but did not bring them into the discussion,
> because for the purposes of this discussion, they are irrelevant. The
> discussion was about the muons BEFORE they decay, not as they decay. Muons
> do stop in the iron block, that is what it is there for - to stop the slow
> ones and only pass the ones with the required speed or above (you still
> have not answered my question or given me a reference as to how the muon
> speed is measured before it enters the iron block). They may well decay
> after they have stopped, but as I said, that is irrelevant.This may
> surprise you, but I do agree with you about the viewpoint of  the scientist
> on Siri or the muon, but that is not what we are discussing here.Please
> answer my point about mass increase, and the (supposed) fact that it stops
> any material body reaching or exceeding the speed of light (and comment on
> my rocket), and so proving that Einstein thought his relativity effects
> were real.
> > Tom Hollings
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181030/45fdcc97/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:41:21 -0400
> > From: kostadinos at aol.com
> > To: cj at mb-soft.com, physics at tuks.nl
> > Subject: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 18, Issue 1
> > Message-ID: <166c5a2eb22-1ec2-792b at webjas-vab008.srv.aolmail.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > What does "actual occurances" mean? Isn't that a "belief"? Can there be
> anything known to us besides what we "measure"?
> >
> > "The Metaphysics of Physics"
> >
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271076313_The_Metaphysics_of_Physics
> >
> > Constantinos Ragazas
> >
> > kostadinos at aol.com
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 carmam <physics at tuks.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Carl, the first point that I was and am making is that Einstein DID
> believe that his relativity predictions were correct and actual
> occurrences, as shown by his chapter which I referenced. You said
> otherwise, and that the rest of the physics world were misinterpreting him.
> >
> > The second point is about muons. You brought up the subject of muons, I
> merely proposed a different answer to yours. I do know about Bremsstrahlung
> radiation and muon decay, but did not bring them into the discussion,
> because for the purposes of this discussion, they are irrelevant. The
> discussion was about the muons BEFORE they decay, not as they decay. Muons
> do stop in the iron block, that is what it is there for - to stop the slow
> ones and only pass the ones with the required speed or above (you still
> have not answered my question or given me a reference as to how the muon
> speed is measured before it enters the iron block). They may well decay
> after they have stopped, but as I said, that is irrelevant.
> >
> > This may surprise you, but I do agree with you about the viewpoint of
> the scientist on Siri or the muon, but that is not what we are discussing
> here.
> >
> > Please answer my point about mass increase, and the (supposed) fact that
> it stops any material body reaching or exceeding the speed of light (and
> comment on my rocket), and so proving that Einstein thought his relativity
> effects were real.
> >
> >
> > Tom Hollings
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181030/d905e5b1/attachment-0001.html
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Physics mailing list
> > Physics at tuks.nl
> > http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
> > **************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>

-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
Paardestraat32
6131HC Sittard
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181101/9b536785/attachment.html>