> : Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> > : He's nitpicking the language. In fact, relativity does hold that a > : material object accelerated toward c picks up mass,
> There is indeed always loose talk about "relativistic mass", but what > doesn't get told nearly so often is that this "relativistic mass" is not > a scalar, but a tensor (there is "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" > components of it), and it doesn't lead to an event horizon.
> This is not nit-picking the language. Whether you want to call it > "relativistic mass", or you use a simpler, more modern term and merely > call it relativistic kinetic energy and take mass to be invariant, > makes no difference, it still doesn't lead to an event horizon. > Whatever language you've used for it, you've come to an incorrect > conclusion.
::::: Presumably at some point the ship is massive enough (from the ::::: outside) to wrap space around it as a black hole. Equally ::::: presumably the people on the ship wouldn't notice anything ::::: different, though the outside universe would start behaving ::::: very oddly.
::: I should have said something like "external frame of reference"
:: Which one? :-)
: Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> : Any one. Again, you need not go so ar out of your way to be : unnecessarily difficult.
There exist external frames of reference in which the ship is moving at one kilometer per fortnight. I'll use one of those. So, see, no black hole. (Hey, you said I could use any one.) For that matter there exist frames of reference where you yourself are moving at 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 lightspeed. And yet, you have the temerity not to collapse into a black hole.
Of course, from ":::::" above it seems you think you *have* collapsed into a black hole, when reckoned according to such frames. And it seems to give you no pause whatever that black holes necessarily have some frame-invariant effects.
But regardless of whether you pause or not, relativity does not now, nor has it ever, predicted a black hole for uniform linear motion, no matter how fast.
>> In fact, the entire concept of the peace Patrol strains credulity on >> several levels, though such ideas were bandied about in the very early >> years after World War II.
>Probably much closer to 1905, the year of publication of H.G. Wells, _A >Modern Utopia_, as he discussed the notion in his chapter on what he >called the Samurai Class. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the >notion also discussed in RAH's classes at the Academy in the late 1920s.
No, Johnny1a has it right. There were serious proposals to internationalize nuclear weapons in the years following WWII.
:: Whether you want to call it "relativistic mass", or you use a :: simpler, more modern term and merely call it relativistic kinetic :: energy and take mass to be invariant, makes no difference, it still :: doesn't lead to an event horizon.
: Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> : Forest, trees.
OK, but whether you call it a forrest or you call it trees, still no event horizon, no matter how fast it moves.
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote: >I reread "Farmer in the Sky" a few weeks ago, and again was struck with >how irrelevant that ending was to the book. The book is about emigrating >to the "stars", and homesteading and building a new life, and suffering >loses along the way. Then the finale happens, a brief mention of the >aftermath, and then wham, a whole new story line about exploring the >planet.
That might have something to do with them originally being serialized.
Derek Lyons wrote: > Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> One thing, the Tom Corbett books hold up a lot better than the Tom >> Swift books.
> Largely because Tom Corbett stories were about people, while Tom Swift > was about gadgets.
I read both series during the Golden Age (when I was 12). What impressed me at the time was that Tom Corbett was grittier: the bad guys would hurt and injure innocent people, and Tom, Astro, and Roger were often in real danger/. Tom Swift lived in this nerfball world where bad things hardly ever happened, and when they did Tom could make them all better.
Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote: >I think any sane and honest person would >conclude that, even discounting Michelson-Morley from over 50 >years earlier, there were approximately 6.327 metric buttloads of >experimental evidence supporting relativity by '41, and that >Heinlein would have had to work rather hard to remain unaware of >that.
Keep in mind that Michelson-Morley didn't actually prove or disprove much of anything - their relatively crude equipment merely placed bounds on the influences of aether, etc... Also keep in mind that people kept refining the Michelson-Morley results for decades. The latest attempt I can find any reference to is 1930, with additional work being done in the 1970's.
Even today, some of the predictions of relativity are *still* being tested. Or, in the case of gravity waves, being attempted to be tested.
Though it's increasingly unlikely, relativity wouldn't be the first theory for which there was tons of evidence but which subsequently turned out to be incomplete if not outright incorrect.
Bill Patterson wrote: > On Mar 9, 7:26?pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> Bill Patterson wrote: >>> Mike, you really dont' need to pretend to be such a numbnutz . ?The >>> mathematical system is a theoretical construct. ?The gravamen of my >>> comments is that there is a significant difference between a >>> mathematical construct and real world behavior of the system.
>> A well-supported one, which has forever overturned classical idea >> like the simple additiviety of velocity. ?The idea that a genius >> like Libby wouldn't be sure of that is silly.
>>> Ok, >>> nitpick - instead of objective observer (which is indeed what the >>> theory of relativity overturns), I should have said something like >>> "external frame of reference"
>> Which one? :-)
> Any one. Again, you need not go so ar out of your way to be > unnecessarily difficult.
I ask because the implication is that the ship is moving at lear lightspeed with respect to some preferred frame of reference, or perhaps all the normal ones. Not true. There are an infinite [1] number of frames of reference, and they're all equally valid. If you mean the frame in which the sun is at rest, that's fine.
> And there are any number of examples in the history of science of even > "well supported" theories being challenged by experimental evidence. > In a new situation, with never-before-encountered conditions, it is > not "silly" (a) not to know how well the experimental findings are > likel to match theoretical predictions and (b) to be intellectually > honest enough to say so.
There's lots of experimental evidence about things going at near lightspeed. We know what happens.
> Again this does not seem to be anything like a "mistake" on Heinlein's > part -- it's an unnecessary and bizarre rigidity on yours, and the > fact that you feel it necessary to reassert it on any possible > occasion tells me a lot more about your Heinlein fanaticism than it > does about afh's.
Whole years go by when it doesn't concern me at all :-)
1. I think aleph-one, but I wouldn't swear to at it this moment.
> Have you seriously not noticed we're talking about the L-Fcontraction > as it fits into relativity?
Not so much. We're talking about what happens when a massive body accelerates. L-F is one consequence, but the resultant speed isn't directly related to L-F.
Derek Lyons wrote: > Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> I reread "Farmer in the Sky" a few weeks ago, and again was struck >> with how irrelevant that ending was to the book. The book is about >> emigrating to the "stars", and homesteading and building a new life, >> and suffering loses along the way. Then the finale happens, a brief >> mention of the aftermath, and then wham, a whole new story line >> about exploring the planet.
> That might have something to do with them originally being serialized.
Was FitS written as a serial, or merely first published as one? (Real question, but I presume the latter.)
> >> In fact, the entire concept of the peace Patrol strains credulity on > >> several levels, though such ideas were bandied about in the very early > >> years after World War II.
> >Probably much closer to 1905, the year of publication of H.G. Wells, _A > >Modern Utopia_, as he discussed the notion in his chapter on what he > >called the Samurai Class. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the > >notion also discussed in RAH's classes at the Academy in the late 1920s.
> No, Johnny1a has it right. There were serious proposals to > internationalize nuclear weapons in the years following WWII.
Of course the Baruch Plan was discussed in the immediate aftermath of WW II; but a peace patrol wasn't a new concept, then, it having been raised in Wells' earlier utopian writings, as noted, two generations earlier.
-- David M. Silver http://www.heinleinsociety.org "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!" Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29 Lt.(jg), USN, R'td
In article <a80ep51vt1a0dd6cr1eldmfjt5pp2bv...@4ax.com>, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net> writes: >To take one of Clarke's own works as half an example, I've never >heard of anyone laughing at the space drive in _The City and the >Start_ the way people laughed at the one in _The Skylark of >Space_. > Smith got ridiculed >because he tried for excessive specificity -- and in the process >revealed not only that he didn't understand relativity, but that >he imagined the human organism could withstand a gazillion G's, >and that he thought the square of the speed of light was also a >speed.
Despite being a Smith junkie for over forty years, I regularly make fun of this part.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding; Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
In article <751ce3a6-25a0-4025-8f55-a6249bd4a...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Johnny1a <shermanl...@hotmail.com> writes:
>On Mar 8, 11:11=A0am, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: >> I don't know why. SC is not all that highly regarded, even among most >> of us who love the juveniles. >I find it interesting as an example of the kind of future RAH >envisioned at one stage of his career, compared to what he pictured >later (or gave the appearance of picturing).
>There's a bit of confusion about whether _Space Cadet_ and its >companion story _The Long Watch_ really belong in his Future History >series.
I'm pretty sure that there's a memorial to the events of "The Long Watch" in at least one other Future History story.
> But there are similarities between the two, even if they >aren't the same universe.
They're certainly in the same universe as each other, since the "Roster of the Lost" or whatever is was called in _SC_ includes the name "Ezra Dahlquist", the hero of "The Long Watch".
>Compare the attitudes we see in _Space Cadet_ to the attitudes toward >authority and government expressed by Lazarus Long written in RAH's >later years.
Or compare the attitudes about economics shown in _For Us, the Living_ and _Beyond This Horizon_ with those shown in his later writings. His political views changed radically over his career. I don't think that anybody would dispute that.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding; Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
In article <f42c6c7b-4280-41a9-8bac-c74dc5b42...@x23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Bill Patterson <whpatter...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Mar 9, 7:26=EF=BF=BDpm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Bill Patterson wrote: >> > comments is that there is a significant difference between a >> > mathematical construct and real world behavior of the system.
>> A well-supported one, which has forever overturned classical idea like the >> simple additiviety of velocity. =EF=BF=BDThe idea that a genius like Libby >> wouldn't >> be sure of that is silly. >And there are any number of examples in the history of science of even >"well supported" theories being challenged by experimental evidence.
That is where relativity came from. Newtownian mechanics was very well-supported, until people started looking at EM radiation.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
>Bill Patterson wrote: >> On Mar 9, 7:26?pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Bill Patterson wrote: >>>> theory of relativity overturns), I should have said something like >>>> "external frame of reference"
>>> Which one? :-)
>> Any one. Again, you need not go so ar out of your way to be >> unnecessarily difficult.
>I ask because the implication is that the ship is moving at lear lightspeed >with respect to some preferred frame of reference, or perhaps all the normal >ones. Not true. There are an infinite [1] number of frames of reference, >and they're all equally valid. If you mean the frame in which the sun is at >rest, that's fine. >1. I think aleph-one, but I wouldn't swear to at it this moment.
That would depend upon your postition w.r.t. the Continuum Hypothesis. Think of it as "c", which overloads so nicely in this context.
-- Michael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> No animals were harmed in the composition of this message.
> In article <751ce3a6-25a0-4025-8f55-a6249bd4a...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Johnny1a <shermanl...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >On Mar 8, 11:11=A0am, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote: > >> I don't know why. SC is not all that highly regarded, even among most > >> of us who love the juveniles. > >I find it interesting as an example of the kind of future RAH > >envisioned at one stage of his career, compared to what he pictured > >later (or gave the appearance of picturing).
> >There's a bit of confusion about whether _Space Cadet_ and its > >companion story _The Long Watch_ really belong in his Future History > >series.
> I'm pretty sure that there's a memorial to the events of "The Long > Watch" in at least one other Future History story.
> > But there are similarities between the two, even if they > >aren't the same universe.
> They're certainly in the same universe as each other, since the "Roster > of the Lost" or whatever is was called in _SC_ includes the name > "Ezra Dahlquist", the hero of "The Long Watch".
> >Compare the attitudes we see in _Space Cadet_ to the attitudes toward > >authority and government expressed by Lazarus Long written in RAH's > >later years.
> Or compare the attitudes about economics shown in _For Us, the Living_ > and _Beyond This Horizon_ with those shown in his later writings. His > political views changed radically over his career. I don't think that > anybody would dispute that.
I don't dispute it but some of the apparent differences in his political views come from changing circumstances within a story. I think it is clear that he regards the kind of loose, open, libertarian if you will, way of doing things that he seems to favor some of the time as being less desirable or perhaps just impossible once a certain population density is reached. He also seems to make exceptions in emergency or "lifeboat" situations.
On Mar 10, 12:26 pm, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> In article <hn8h10$8o...@news.eternal-september.org>, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >I ask because the implication is that the ship is moving at lear lightspeed > >with respect to some preferred frame of reference, or perhaps all the normal > >ones. Not true. There are an infinite [1] number of frames of reference, > >and they're all equally valid. If you mean the frame in which the sun is at > >rest, that's fine. > >1. I think aleph-one, but I wouldn't swear to at it this moment.
> That would depend upon your postition w.r.t. the Continuum Hypothesis. > Think of it as "c", which overloads so nicely in this context.
Different font. The cardinal of the continuum is a fraktur c.
> > > David M. Silver wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <8900f2f6-90ac-4324-b84b-80d5e8c31...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Mar 8, 2:41 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > > >>>> SC is not all that highly regarded, even among most > > > >>>> of us who love the juveniles.
> > > >>> It is rumored to be the inspriation for Tom Corbett, and many of the > > > >>> similarites are evident. Can any Heinlien scholars enlarge on this?
> > > >> I think that was discssed on AFH at one time with no positive > > > >> conclusion being reached. It could have been the inspiration, it > > > >> could have even been THE inspriation but it could also have been > > > >> that they had a common ancestor, probably in pulp fiction. > > > > See,
> > You might also note that, although Heinlein collected a royalty from the > > TV series throughout its run, he never saw any of the series itself. > > Television reception in Colorado Springs during the period in question > > was so bad that only one station was available and it didn't carry the > > TV show. He had no direct participation in the scripts televised.
> There _have_ to be echoes of this in _The Rolling Stones_
In article <4b9bc09c.84682...@news.supernews.com>,
Derek Lyons <fairwa...@gmail.com> wrote: >Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>One thing, the Tom Corbett books hold up a lot better than the Tom Swift >>books.
>Largely because Tom Corbett stories were about people, while Tom Swift >was about gadgets.
>D. >--
To some extent yes. Although Tom Swift, Bud & Chow (or perhaps Tom Swift, Ned and Mr. Damon depending on your era) did have recognizable personalities.
Of course neither set of TS characters nor the TC characters could hold a candle to the Rick Brant characters..
Ted -- ------ columbiaclosings.com What's not in Columbia anymore..
Butch Malahide wrote: > On Mar 10, 12:26 pm, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com > (Michael Stemper) wrote: >> In article <hn8h10$8o...@news.eternal-september.org>, >> "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> writes: >>> I ask because the implication is that the ship is >>> moving at lear lightspeed with respect to some >>> preferred frame of reference, or perhaps all the >>> normal ones. Not true. There are an infinite [1] >>> number of frames of reference, and they're all >>> equally valid. If you mean the frame in which the >>> sun is at rest, that's fine. >>> 1. I think aleph-one, but I wouldn't swear to at it >>> this moment. >> That would depend upon your postition w.r.t. the >> Continuum Hypothesis. Think of it as "c", which >> overloads so nicely in this context. > Different font. The cardinal of the continuum is a > fraktur c.
Not as a rule nowadays, unless it's making a comeback thanks to computers.
Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote: >There are an infinite [1] number of frames of reference, >and they're all equally valid. >1. I think aleph-one, but I wouldn't swear to at it this moment.
Um. Power of the continuum, which confusingly is ALSO labelled "c", I believe. And nobody knows whether it's aleph-one or not. [It's actually even more confusing than that but dropping infinity into a relativity thread is going to have byproducts that are more interesting than I think I can deal with.]
Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
:: Smith got ridiculed because he tried for excessive specificity -- and :: in the process revealed not only that he didn't understand :: relativity, but that he imagined the human organism could withstand a :: gazillion G's, and that he thought the square of the speed of light :: was also a speed.
: mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) : Despite being a Smith junkie for over forty years, I regularly make : fun of this part.
Hm. The "speed of light squared" is more of a George O. thing, innit? Where does that occur in E.E.? Or do you mean the bit about "we could develop not only the velocity of light, but an accelerating equal to that velocity"? I thought E.E. just pretty much ignored relativity, other than a casual "welp, that sure turned out not tob e the case" kind of comment in Skylark somewhere.
Of course, also add to that the fact that even total conversion of matter in a with newtonian kinematics wouldn't give anything *near* the performance of the Skylark. Not even close. So... presumably "relasing the intra-atomic energy" of metals releases more energy than the mass of the metal, in that universe.
|
