Misconceptions in Relativity

Wrong

lol Ok which was wrong? The statement or my apptitude? If it was the statement. Could you provide a better explenation.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

Hey rueh. I think cave means that you do have the apptitude to convey it...it seems the person who you are having the discussion with apparently does not have the apptitude to understand you.

See Onifre's reply

Hi cavediver, I was hoping you would elaborate more on this.Could you give an example of the "right context" where (m) would increase with (v)?As I understood it, Wolfgang Rindler was incorrect in his equations, right?[ABE]:
GR tells us that in the frame of reference of the photon the Earth is traveling at (c), and thus it's (m) should increase, if I'm not mistaken, eventually causing the Earth to collapes into a blackhole, which is obviously not the case. So, in relativity, how would (m) increase with (v)?I hope this makes sense. Edited by onifre, : give a clearer discription of how I undertand itEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I hope cavediver doesn't mind me answering some of this for him; he is welcome to clarify my statements if needed.

quote:

---

Could you give an example of the "right context" where (m) would increase with (v)?

---

The problem is that the terms are somewhat vague and are used in different ways. In many fields (e.g. particle physics), the term "mass" is understood to mean a particle's invariant "rest mass," and relativistic particles are not described in terms of their increasing mass, but in terms of their increasing kinetic energy. But it is also OK to think of the particle's effective mass as increasing.Perhaps this is a clearer way to express the original statement: The effective or equivalent mass of an object increases with the velocity of that object relative to an observer who is measuring its mass.

quote:

---

SR tells us that in the frame of reference of the photon the Earth is traveling at (c), and thus it's (m) should increase, if I'm not mistaken, eventually causing the Earth to collapes into a blackhole, which is obviously not the case. So, in relativity, how would (m) increase with (v)?

---

Interesting scenario. But remember that in addition to mass, length and time are also relative. From the perspective of a photon, the earth has infinite mass, is an infinitely thin flat disc, and has its time frozen. So the "eventual" collapse will never come. (But I'm somewhat nervous about mixing gravity and SR as your scenario does; this is probably a better question for GR.)

This is much clearer, and it was my mistake in the way I interpreted what cavediver meant. *Nod* You are right and I've since changed it, thanks.And thanks for the clarifications.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Any chance Cavediver that you read John Hartnett's book Starlight Time nad the New physicsI would have liked to have your opinion on this. I just finished reading it, unfortunately I understand half of the appendix, which is had of the book lol. (I'm going to maths and physics at university so hopefully I'll come to understand it)Do you have any opinion concerning Carmelian Cosmology also ??thx!

You probably want to take this question to the new Starlight thread.--Percy

No, I'd never heard of it before reading your post. Having searched, it is saturated amongst creationist sites, yet hardly a mention anywhere else... not a good sign. I have now dug out his papers. However, first I'll turn to Carmeli: I didn't, because again I had never heard of it. Not surprising when you do a cite search on his papers... his work is ignored. I dug out this paper this morning, and I have tried to read it. I must admit that I am out of practice - I left academia over a decade ago - but even so, this reads as garbage. But I am always willing to accept that I'm losing it, so I have dug a bit deeper. I've spent a few hours on this now, and here are some pages from Carmeli's book, Cosmological relativity.I started reading, and the feeling I was reading nonsense increased until I reached page 21, example 1. My jaw was dropping, and by the time I read "It is a Higgs scalar", I was in hysterics. This is complete and utter bullshit. He is a loon. Why the f'ck should some random scalar equation (in his perverse notation) be the Higgs with absolutely zero justification??? What the hell has this to do with the Higgs mechanism? It's just a sodding scalar, and he is using the "fame" of the Higgs as a name-drop. He does the same in example 2 with his vector equation. Pathetic and immediately revealing as someone who has lost it. I've met several academics just like this - they go so far in the field, and then meltdown into gibberish and crank-status. We had a few in the maths dept, and of course over at the Cavendish they had Josephson, the archetype for this kind of behaviour. Anyway, reading further on it just gets worse...With this knowledge, some of what I had been reading earlier about Hartnett started to make sense:

quote:

---

Dr. Hartnett has published two papers on the Cornell Preprint server covering the topic of extragalactic redshift periodicities. I'll refer to them as Paper I and Paper II.

​

* Paper I: "Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts $N(z)$ using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys" by John G. Hartnett, Koichi Hirano (arXiv:0711.4885)

​

* Paper II: "Redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey" by John G. Hartnett (arXiv:0712.3833)

​

It's interesting that the recently posted third version (v3) of paper I not only has an additional author, but seems to advocate a radically different cosmological model than the second version (v2). In the v2 paper, Hartnett advocated Moshe Carmeli's 5-dimensional cosmological model where the Hubble expansion was made part of the metric. Hartnett published several additional papers based on this model claiming it could explain Dark Matter as well. In paper v3, Hartnett has switched to another model developed by Hirano, Kawabata, and Komiya. This may be because the Hirano et al. cosmology explicitly tries to explain alleged redshift periodicities.

---

From hereRed-shift periodicity is of great interest to me as it was central to some of my first research on topological compactifications of the Universe. I was sad to discover back then that there was nothing to red-shift periodicity - no the result I was looking for. It seems Hartnett wants to claim it exists to be able to posit a galacto-centric Universe, and he seems to be jumping from one comsological model to another in a hope to rescue the concept. He will be disappointed.That Hartnett was using Carmeli's work is extremely damning, and looking at Hartnett's academic profile, it appears he is simply way out of his depth, but is quite happy making money out of gullible creationists. It can't be wrong, can it, because so many other Christians do exactly the same...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

I've been digging further as he intrigues me - he is (or was, as I've seen a comment suggetsing he died in the past 24 months) Albert Einstein Professor of Theoretical Physics, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel; author of many many books on Relativity and related subjects; and publisher of a decent (if not large) number of papers over the past few decades. But no-one talks about him, reads his books, reviews them, and he is largely ignored. Looking at his last ten year's worth of work, it is not wholly surprising. Finally, just a minute ago, I found this:

quote:

---

The First Six Days of the Universe
Professor Moshe Carmeli

​

Abstract
The early stage of the universe is discussed, and the time lengths of its first six days are given, as well as the age of the universe. There seems to be no contradiction with the biblical claim that the universe was created in six days.

---

HmmmABE: It's not all bad Relativity Conference in the Midwest 1969:R elativity; Proceedings.
Edited by Moshe Carmeli and Stuart I. Fickler and Louis WittenLouis is the father of Ed, and as we all know, Ed is God Though who would have thought that God would have Mickey Mouse's voice!ABE2: This one is rather interesting. He was Rosen's student (of EPR and Einstein-Rosen Bridge fame) which places Carmeli just two under Einstein! But if you want to look how the greatest can lose their way, just look at Einstein himself Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Carmeli seems to have been a darling of the YEC's From CreationwikiKind of makes you question the science. You think he published any of this in peer reviewed journals?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Most of his recent work is in The International Journal of Theoretical Physics, which unsurprisingly is where Harnett's work is finding a home. In the context of comsological/relativistic pubs, it ranks a little above toilet paper, on a good day...

From the link you referred to. Here.I think this is the key paragraph. Typical creationist, using "intuition" instead of actually testing. Sure doesnt sound like the scientific method does it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Sorry Oni, missed this, so only a month late! But there was a few issues with the reply you received - sorry kbertsche - so better late than never...kbertsche was exactly right in saying that there is plenty of confusion over the term mass, and that the mass in which we are most interested is the rest-mass of an object.I'm sure you're aware from SR that we have time dilation and length contraction. These are purely observational effects, resulting from observing 4d space-time from a 3d perspective. But these effects will distort the results of any mechanics we calculate for an observed object travelling at relativistic speeds. If we know the rest mass of the object, the distorted time and distance measurements will make us calculate an altered "relativistc" mass. But this is purely observational and is observer dependent - we can simply match speed with the object, and the relativistic mass disappears - it has been "transformed" away. Thus it is not "real" and has no gravitational impact.Exercise 1: Can we imagine a scenario where the "relativistic" mass of something* cannot be transformed away? And so could have a gravitational effect?* hint - requires the right sort of something==============================================OT comment for Oni: Being such a Bill Hicks fan, do you like Tool?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.