Proposed Relavistic Mass Test

Why does mass have to increase?

What if the force pushing the mass has a weaker effect?
Think of this when pushing a child on a swing. At start off, there is a lot of force transmitted to the child from your hand, as the swing moves slowly and it is easy to transmit force from your hand to the child on the swing.
When the swing is moving fast, you hand has a weaker affect on transferring force to the swing. As the speed at which your hand moves is close to the speed at which the swing moves away from it.

I think this could explain why mass seems to increase. It is not the mass getting heavier; it's the effect of the pushing force weakening.

We could say that force transmits at light speed. This gives the same result as a quasi-mass increase.

wisp

- particles of nothingness

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[wisp]: We could say that force transmits at light speed.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This would violate our assumption that the gravitational force propagation should be significantly larger than "c" as to render planet orbits stable.

Perhaps another interpretation of apparent mass increase could be that the energy transfer becomes less efficient with high relative velocities. This has been argued on other forums as well. Also, I read somewhere the assumption that energy could get absorbed with high velocities, that is, the object being propelled actually deforms, therefore absorbing any increment of energy applied to it.

Wisp and Jan,

I think you both are precisely right. Unless you have an alternative name I in fact will take credit for the view that energy transfer decreases rather than mass increases. That is the UniKEF view and I have been circulating it for some time.

This view results in getting the same observation and tests results that purportedly support Relativty but eliminates the "infinite" mass problem and removes that as a legitimate limitation on ultimate terminal velocity.

That is I believe FTL is possible but one ceases to exist in our physical dimens when doing so. OUr universe is bounded by Qualittive and Quantitative Domain limits and v = c is one of those limits but that doesn't limit energy nor velocity, it limits physical existance in our universe.

Knowing to believe only
half of what you hear is
a sign of intelligence.
Knowing which half to believe
can make you a genius.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: That is I believe FTL is possible but one ceases to exist in our physical dimens when doing so. OUr universe is bounded by Qualittive and Quantitative Domain limits and v = c is one of those limits but that doesn't limit energy nor velocity, it limits physical existance in our universe.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You have a point. Also, I'd like to think that the light speed "c" is a natural limit that occurs, but which does not preclude any artificial or engineered occurences of phenomena exceeding "c". Just when you think about it, the light speed "c" is just terribly slow on a cosmological scale, and it just seems very unlikely that "c" is an omnipotent limit for all possible phenomena. Perhaps we just haven't found enough fundamental properties of space to conclude that "c" is a true limit, although our current knowledge and experimental sophistication says it is.

Jan,

Actually there is strong observational evidence which indicates that v = c is a limit on existance in our universal domain. We have never seen nor have we ever been able to accelerate a particle to an FTL velocity. But those limits are between the accelerating force and the particle.

A self propelled object such as a rocket, has no relative velocity between its fuel, thrust engine or rocket load. Hence no "Apparent" mass increase" (or energy transfer decrease, which should mean that such a rocket would continue to accelerate even beyond v = c relative to anyother object.

One natural observtion that supports this view is the proper velocity of exploding Quasars. well over 100 objects have been found out there that have velocites that exceed v = c by gross amounts. The highest one I've seen thus far has a proper velocity of 5,200 c!.

We only observe this motion because it is orthogonal to us (moving at right angles, hence NO relative velocity to us). If it were coming at us or away from us it would have vanished by Lorentz Contraction and is no longer coupled to our dimension. But it would not have ceased to exist but merely exists to observers that at moving at v<c relative to it.

So v = c appears to be a limit on transfer of energy due to dimensional contraction. In UniKEF (developed by other trigonometry) the results are the same and that is to view the decrease in energy by the applied force being stored in the fabric of space, simular to the field around a coil.

Knowing to believe only half
of what you hear is a sign
of intelligence. Knowing
which half to believe can
make you a genius.