: Rodney <rodneyjkelly@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: First off, it's not handwaving, it's technobabble. Every reference
: source I have access to states that as a body with mass accelerates,
: it gains in mass. Now I grant you that my information is a bit old,
: but all of them agree that the mechanism for this is unknown. More
: current sources talk of Higgs partials, but I am skeptical of a
: partial whose only job is to support an obscure part of a theory. My
: theory is based on what I see as an alternative explanation of the
: affect.
No, "theories" in physics involve mathematical groups and vector bosons
and all kinds of things like that. What you have there is not a theory,
it is, as you say, technobabble. "Babble" in the sense of not making any.
"Phase shift" and "emitting photons" and so on and so forth is just
words tossed in a salad, signifying nothing.
Further, one observer's acceleration is another's deceleration, so any
explanation must account for why this object is simultaneously gaining,
and losing, mass. An interesting and important part of the concept that
you didn't even begin to mention, let alone resolve or "explain".
The standard explanation is that this "mass increase" isn't a property
of the object at all; how could it be, since it depends on who's looking
at it? What you call "gaining mass" most physicists tend nowdays to
call "gaining energy", for various interesting reasons, and it works no
differently, and is no more mysterious than, kinetic energy in newtonian
physics. It's simply invariant under the lorentz transform rather than
the galilean transform. And "invariances" and "transforms" and such
are also part and parcel of what anybody since about 1900 or so would
expect to find in a "theory"; not just "phase shifts" wnd word salads.
Or, if you insist, and since I've just substuted jargon involving
"invariance" and "transform" for that involving "phase shift" and
"photons", I suppose you could look at it as a case of you using the
wrong words in your word salad. The words you are using aren't getting
at the issues of relativity at all, since you seem to have a major
misconception about what relativity is all about. At the very least,
read Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics" and work several of the
homework problems in it; it may help you understand why your "theory"
doesn't address the issues involved at all, not even a little bit.
Wayne Throop throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sheol.org/throopw
|
