: Rodney <rodneyjkelly@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
: If someone would be ever so kind as to review my first paragraph,
: you will find that I never claimed that I was right. I just said that
: I could not move any farther. All I wanted was to understand. All you
: guys seem to what to do is to make me look like a fool. Well the only
: thing I understand is that this was a big waist of my time.
Perhaps if you'd phrase it in the form of a question rather than an
assertion of how things work, it would be a smaller waist. What is
it you really want to know? Near as I can tell, your *implied* question
is something like "what's wrong with the notion that one can produce
singularities this way". And the answer is, "because several of the
assumptions you made were incorrect".
Specifically, the notions that the "mass increases" (really, kinetic
energy increase, but what you called "mass") leads to a singularity, and
that the problem of accelerating objects is due to exchanging photons
with an accelerator, and that for a rocket there is no such effect.
Those are factually incorrect. If that makes you feel foolish, I'm not
sure how to proceed. I mean... they really are incorrect, you know.
If you didn't want peopple to point out where you made incorrect
assumptions, what *did* you want?
I'll again suggest Taylor and Wheeler's "Spacetime Physics".
Wayne Throop throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sheol.org/throopw
|
