Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Philosophy Explorer]

When an object moves faster through space, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the object gains mass. Where this extra mass comes from, I don't know. The law of conservation of mass says the amount of mass in the universe remains the same so the object picking up mass seems to be an exception to the law.

Do you have any comments? What say you to this?

[Calrid]

E=mc^2 and energy is mass in it's non rest state, hence light is energy and anything else has mass. Motion imparts energy and confers mass upon a component vector across its path.

Light however has no mass so if you use the equations correctly it's path and it's mass are not relative or well defined, in fact they are meaningless. Any non mass object is energy, any mass object exerts a curvature on space time making it gravitationally considered. That said even light has mass although it's mass is so small if not non existent its force is hence very weak. This is proven by looking at light as it is affected by space time. Although the equations are fairly abstract to say the least. You can't doubt the evidence though in both relativistic frameworks special and general. It seems to work.

You often see people claiming that photons because they have no appreciable mass do not experience time, are timeless have no conjugate vector value, this is a mistake the vector in a Lorentz transform and under tensor notation is simply undefined. Like dividing 0 by 0.

[DarwinX]

When an object moves faster through space, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the object gains mass. Where this extra mass comes from, I don't know. The law of conservation of mass says the amount of mass in the universe remains the same so the object picking up mass seems to be an exception to the law.

Do you have any comments? What say you to this?

Mass is not weight, volume or size. It is aetheric resistance. Therefore, when an object accelerates through space it gains aetheric resistance which is called mass. Note Einstein called the aether - 'the space time continuum'.

[Calrid]

(Nested quote removed.)


Mass is not weight, volume or size. It is aetheric resistance. Therefore, when an object accelerates through space it gains aetheric resistance which is called mass. Note Einstein called the aether - 'the space time continuum'.

The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved luminiferous aether, but not other forms of ether or aether for that matter, as an additional point. Sadly though there are some very poorly educated people in the subject who insist ether does not exist when they know they have no way of proving it. Such religious convictions have no place in science.

Ether is merely a way of saying a gradient in space time, you can call it a differential if you like in Non-Euclidean Geometry or curvature of space, or anything you like but don't make the mistake of thinking you know what is really going on.

Ether may or may not exist, if it doesn't it is irrelevant, if it does it is irrelevant also, nothing physically changes in the experiment so it is a moot point.

[Mysterio448]

When an object moves faster through space, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the object gains mass. Where this extra mass comes from, I don't know. The law of conservation of mass says the amount of mass in the universe remains the same so the object picking up mass seems to be an exception to the law.

Do you have any comments? What say you to this?

I am not familiar with the law of conservation of mass, but I do know of the law of conservation of energy. According to the mass-energy equivalence formula, energy and mass are basically different forms of the same thing. When an object is moving, I presume that the mass gained by that object comes from the energy of the objects motion, which itself came from the energy of the force or fuel that is causing the object to move in the first place.

[Geordie Ross]

When an object moves faster through space, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the object gains mass. Where this extra mass comes from, I don't know. The law of conservation of mass says the amount of mass in the universe remains the same so the object picking up mass seems to be an exception to the law.

Do you have any comments? What say you to this?

As calrid said, its down the the energy mass equivalence formula, a slight tweak turns it from e=mc2 to m=e/c2. Thus leaving no laws broken.

[DarwinX]

The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved luminiferous aether, but not other forms of ether or aether for that matter, as an additional point. Sadly though there are some very poorly educated people in the subject who insist ether does not exist when they know they have no way of proving it. Such religious convictions have no place in science.

Ether is merely a way of saying a gradient in space time, you can call it a differential if you like in Non-Euclidean Geometry or curvature of space, or anything you like but don't make the mistake of thinking you know what is really going on.

Ether may or may not exist, if it doesn't it is irrelevant, if it does it is irrelevant also, nothing physically changes in the experiment so it is a moot point.

I have pointed out a number of times previously, in other posts, that the aether experiments were vetoed by Einstein because he obviously didn't want his newly developed theories to be overridden.



Dayton Millers experiments which were far more precise and conducted using better quality instruments, did find positive results, which were also discredited by Einstein.

Examples of the effects of aether - Electricity, magnetism, gravity and mass, what more evidence do you need?

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Note - A gradient in space time is just another way of saying an aether!

You can also call it a boson, WIMP, quantized photons, space time continuum, dark matter, dark energy, Planks Constant, etc, etc It looks like most physicists just can't get by without it, whatever it is.

[Calrid]

No a gradient in space time is another way of saying nothing, if you can prove it is an aether on the other hand then someone will care, until you can no one does and you should get used to that, because science doesn't do your beliefs.

It might be we don't need anything but the GR, it might not, but cart before the horse is not wise.

Dayton Millers experiments which were far more precise and conducted using better quality instruments, did find positive results, which were also discredited by Einstein.

And every other person on the planet who has done the experiment since then and shown the results to be the same across the board for 100 years. Seriously you are deluding yourself if you think that the experiment was done to prove Einstein wrong. It was done to advance science and the experimenters were wrong, that is all that matters. Honestly this electively cherry picking any result out of thousands of nay sayers may pass in your world for insight, but in mine it is religion.

-- Updated December 29th, 2013, 5:19 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


I am not familiar with the law of conservation of mass, but I do know of the law of conservation of energy. According to the mass-energy equivalence formula, energy and mass are basically different forms of the same thing. When an object is moving, I presume that the mass gained by that object comes from the energy of the objects motion, which itself came from the energy of the force or fuel that is causing the object to move in the first place.

They are the same thing indeed since mass and energy are equivalent.

I'm only sure you can induce that motion induces mass in mass objects and something mass like in non mass objects, anything else is irrelevant.

[DarwinX]

It might be we don't need anything but the GR, it might not, but cart before the horse is not wise.

It appears that you have been brainwashed by the authoritarian science community. Note - The horse and cart was the origin of the idea that gravity pulls which is the crux of the whole problem at hand. If you see gravity as a pushing force you will find that the universe makes a lot more sense. Note - The horse is actually pushing the cart.

You can accept the quasi religious/science idea of a pulling gravity at the lost of your logic and reason. Happy magic!!!

[Calrid]

(Nested quote removed.)


It appears that you have been brainwashed by the authoritarian science community. Note - The horse and cart was the origin of the idea that gravity pulls which is the crux of the whole problem at hand. If you see gravity as a pushing force you will find that the universe makes a lot more sense. Note - The horse is actually pushing the cart.

You can accept the quasi religious/science idea of a pulling gravity at the lost of your logic and reason. Happy magic!!!

Brain washed by no one I think atm science has it all wrong, but then it always does, that's the beauty of science, if it ever had it all right it would be dead; but I wont sit by and see what they have got right belittled by people who cannot prove it. Proof or die, there is no failure in this dojo son, you live and you die by evidence.

if you want to spout ad hom by all means go for it, if you want to actually prove anything by all means go for it. either way all at once or one at a time, you're all going home in the same ambulance.

That's a joke by the way I am not really going to physically beat anyone, mentally neither, we are all here to learn.

[Raymond]

There is one phenomenon breaking the law. A fundamental phenomenon laying at the base of existence. If matter in the universe has turned photonic, the energy of all these photons goes to zero asymptotically. Which means two new universe can be created, which again can fade into zero energy. So in subsequent big bangs no energy is created or destroyed.