[Physics] Cubic Atomic Model + Theory

[mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk]

Tom,

The choice of reference frame for SRT can be either. However, your 
choice of using E/M to accelerate a circling particle is not SRT. Nor is 
the acceleration of a rocket in a straight line, because there is a 
force at work.  An SRT system must be without acting forces and the 
relative velocity must be constant - but yours has 
centrifugal/centripetal acceleration (whichever you prefer to use). So 
it is not a valid SRT system. You would need to consider your system as 
if it were a equivalent gravitational force acting on the rocket and 
move to GR.

Cheers
Mike




On 2020-05-10 11:19, Tom Hollings wrote:
> Thank you for your reply Mike. That is self-evidently a reply from a
> mathematician. This is the formula for mass increase :-
> 
>  m = m0 / sqrt( 1- ( v / c )^2), which is one of the Lorentz
> transforms. I am sure you must be familiar with it.
> 
> where m = the mass of the body
> m0 = the rest mass (proper mass)
> v = the velocity of the body
> c = the velocity of light
> 
> You will notice that I used that formula in my paper
> http://problemswithrelativity.com/#lorentz
> 
> It is one of the set of three formulae that Einstein used extensively.
> You will notice that the IFR to which this formula refers is not
> explicitly mentioned, and is always assumed to be the starting point
> of the particle under acceleration; or, as in this instance, the
> rocket. In a particle accelerator, where the motive force is
> stationary (WRT the lab etc), and the particle is being pushed, it is
> legitimate to use it (I am talking here as a relativist). A rocket
> carries its own motive force, so the lab etc is obviously not a
> suitable choice of reference frame.
> 
> You still have not answered the question though, as the question was
> "Please tell me using SRT (not SRT re-jigged) why the rocket cannot
> exceed light speed. Einstein stated that it could not, using SRT to
> "prove" it. So you must use SRT to prove that I am wrong."
> 
> You have not used SRT, please do so, and when you do, please tell me
> why you have chosen a particular reference frame in preference to any
> other.
> 
> Tom.
> 
>> On 10 M
> 
>> ay 2020 at 00:13 mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>> Tom,
>> 
>> Please see the attached paper which includes within it the proof
>> that no
>> matter how many velocities you add to an object, it will never
>> exceed c
>> (in normal space). Part of it includes the main SRT equation which
>> is
>> simply the rejigging of x^2 + Y^2 = Z^2 in two dimensions. So it
>> goes
>> beyond SRT.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mike
>> 
>> ps Please ignore the Fermat section. I have a better paper on that,
>> although that also subsequently did not exclude some values of N, so
>> it
>> is work in progress.