Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #637062

Re: accelerating affecting mass?

Show all headers | View raw

Why can't we have a frame of reference in which light is not moving? 
After all we can exceed the speed of sound or travel at the speed of 
sound so why not light? I have a feeling it is something to do with the 
fact that a photon is considered to be massless? On the other hand a 
sound particle could be massless too, after all, sound is really a wave 
travelling through a medium, and doesn't light need a medium to travel 
through it since after all its speed changes through water, maybe there 
is a medium in space that we can't see, I don't know.

I am thinking how can the speed of light be constant in all frames of 
reference? If you have a torch and are walking then to an observer who 
is standing, the torch light velocity must be speed of light + speed of 
walking? Obviously there is something I am missing here.

Also look what I found, some disagreements about whether mass increases 
or not as the speed of an object increases and approaches the speed of 
light?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-relativistic-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches

If you want to intuitively see why the mass increases, consider the 
following.

Firstly, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (this is the 
premise on which Special Relativity is based)

Secondly, applying a force to an object will increase its kinetic energy 
(assuming the force acts in the same direction as the object's motion)

Since kinetic energy K.E. = mv^2/2, if v is limited to c, then as v 
approaches c the only way for K.E. to increase is for m to increase.

This isn't a fully mathematical answer, but may help you to intuit why 
the mass increases.

...

I have never before heard that special relativity is based on the 
premise that nothing can move faster than light. Elementary SR usually 
says 1) The speed of light is constant in all frames. 2) All physical 
laws are the same in inertial frames. – Mark Eichenlaub Dec 6 '10 at 20:58

...

This argument is wrong. Relativistic kinetic energy doesn't equal 
(1/2)mv^2, and doesn't approach a limit as v approaches c
  – Ben Crowell May 8 '13 at 23:14

Also:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/49862/how-is-the-speed-of-light-constant-in-all-directions-for-all-observers




On Mon 19-Jun-17 2:02 AM, F. Russell wrote:
> The idea that nothing can move faster than light speed
> is equivalent to the fact that there can be no frame of
> reference in which light would appear stationary.
> 
> OK?  Do you got that?  The two statements are EXACTLY the
> same.  So forget about "speed of light" viewpoints and
> instead consider frames of reference in which light is
> stationary.
> 
> What would stationary light, light that does not move,
> be like?  It is an absurd idea and could not possibly
> exist or ever be observed.
> 

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

accelerating affecting mass? Jevan Pipitone <nospam@jevan.com.au> - 2017-06-18 02:18 +1000
  Re: accelerating affecting mass? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-06-18 16:02 +0000
    Re: accelerating affecting mass? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-18 10:25 -0700
      Re: accelerating affecting mass? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-18 20:02 -0700
      Re: accelerating affecting mass? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-19 19:16 -0400
        Re: accelerating affecting mass? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 13:17 -0700
          Re: accelerating affecting mass? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-20 15:52 -0700
      Re: accelerating affecting mass? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-21 19:38 -0700
        Re: accelerating affecting mass? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-21 19:46 -0700
          Re: accelerating affecting mass? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-21 21:28 -0700
            Re: accelerating affecting mass? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-22 15:08 -0700
              Re: accelerating affecting mass? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2017-06-22 15:19 -0700
              Re: accelerating affecting mass? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-22 19:29 -0700
    Re: accelerating affecting mass? Jevan Pipitone <nospam@jevan.com.au> - 2017-06-21 01:58 +1000
      Re: accelerating affecting mass? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-06-20 17:28 +0000
      Re: accelerating affecting mass? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-06-20 17:34 +0000
        Re: accelerating affecting mass? Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 17:37 +0000
          Re: accelerating affecting mass? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 13:24 -0700
            Re: accelerating affecting mass? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-20 15:47 -0700
            Re: accelerating affecting mass? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 14:38 -0700
              Re: accelerating affecting mass? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-22 18:29 -0700
            Re: accelerating affecting mass? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-22 14:45 -0700
              Re: accelerating affecting mass? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-22 18:35 -0700
        Re: accelerating affecting mass? Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-20 12:39 -0500
      Re: accelerating affecting mass? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 13:19 -0700
        Re: accelerating affecting mass? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-20 15:53 -0700
      Re: accelerating affecting mass? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 17:30 -0700
        Re: accelerating affecting mass? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-21 21:31 -0400
          Re: accelerating affecting mass? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-22 02:22 +0000
            Re: accelerating affecting mass? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-22 18:13 -0400
              Re: accelerating affecting mass? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-23 01:53 +0000
                Re: accelerating affecting mass? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 12:58 -0400
                Re: accelerating affecting mass? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-23 18:33 +0000
                Re: accelerating affecting mass? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 15:19 -0400
                Re: accelerating affecting mass? Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2017-06-23 21:09 +0000
  Re: accelerating affecting mass? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-06-18 10:25 -0700
    Re: accelerating affecting mass? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-18 20:03 -0700
  Re: accelerating affecting mass? poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-20 09:41 -0700
  Re: accelerating affecting mass? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-06-21 03:13 -0400
    Re: accelerating affecting mass? poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-21 01:59 -0700
      Re: accelerating affecting mass? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-06-21 21:47 -0400
        Re: accelerating affecting mass? "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-06-22 16:45 +0000

csiph-web