Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< October 13 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | Current desk > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
May it be harmful for the visual perception to directly look at sunlight through a video or TV? I mean, can the data transmitted by those medias include ultraviolet like it does include visible wavelengths of light? -- 2001:999:404:8155:D267:90D1:4F35:7D6 ( talk) 18:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Introduction: The first to prove the connection between relativistic mass, rest mass, and velocity: (without relying on the mass-energy equivalence), was Richard Chace Tolman, and he did it twice:
1. For the first time, in a common article with Gilbert Newton Lewis (1909): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity,_and_Non-Newtonian_Mechanics , at the beginning of the chapter: "Non-Newtonian Mechanics".
2. The second time, by Tolman alone (1912): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mass_of_a_Moving_Body, in the chapter: "Longitudinal Collision".
There are four fundamental differences between the two proofs:
A. The first proof describes two observers, each of whom: 1. Sees the other one moving. 2. Sees a ball launched from him and moving perpendicularly to the direction of motion of the second observer. The second proof describes almost the same scenario, but this time each ball is observed moving in the same line of the relative motion between both observers.
B. Unlike the first proof, the second proof relies on the law of conservation of relativistic mass, so that during the whole process - the sum of the relativistic masses of both balls - is conserved.
C. Indeed, both proofs rely on the law of conservation of momentum: However, the first proof uses the law of conservation of momentum - in order to be allowed to assume, that the momentum of the first ball observed by the first observer, is the momentum of the second ball - as calculated by him - to be the momentum (of this ball) observed by the second observer. On the other hand, the second proof uses the law of conservation of momentum - in order to be allowed to assume, that the sum of - the momentum of the first ball - and the momentum of the second ball, is the momentum of the whole system containing both balls,
D. Unlike the second proof, the first proof is based on the implicit assumption that the distance traveled by a given ball until it collides with the other ball is the same distance - whether it is observed by a given observer - or it is calculated by him to be a distance observed by the other observer. The first proof uses this implicit assumption - in order to logically conclude, that each of the two observers concludes that the ratio between the velocity of a given ball before the collision and the velocity of this ball after the collision - is different from the ratio between the velocity of the other ball before the collision and the velocity of this other ball after the collision - when this second ratio is calculated by him to be a ratio observed by the other observer.
In my opinion, the first proof contains two mistakes: The first mistake is the assumption indicated in Section C on behalf of this proof. The second mistake in this proof is the implicit assumption indicated in Section D on behalf of this proof: For if the ball were a photon - whose velocity is of course calculated by both observers to be observed as constant by both observers, then both ratios discussed in Section D would be identical to 1, unlike the conclusion of Section D on behalf of this proof.
Question: Assuming that paragraphs A to D describe correctly the differences between both proofs, is my opinion indicated in the previous paragraph correct?
2A06:C701:7455:C600:5169:C2D6:AB07:4DE9 ( talk) 21:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< October 13 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | Current desk > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
May it be harmful for the visual perception to directly look at sunlight through a video or TV? I mean, can the data transmitted by those medias include ultraviolet like it does include visible wavelengths of light? -- 2001:999:404:8155:D267:90D1:4F35:7D6 ( talk) 18:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Introduction: The first to prove the connection between relativistic mass, rest mass, and velocity: (without relying on the mass-energy equivalence), was Richard Chace Tolman, and he did it twice:
1. For the first time, in a common article with Gilbert Newton Lewis (1909): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Principle_of_Relativity,_and_Non-Newtonian_Mechanics , at the beginning of the chapter: "Non-Newtonian Mechanics".
2. The second time, by Tolman alone (1912): https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mass_of_a_Moving_Body, in the chapter: "Longitudinal Collision".
There are four fundamental differences between the two proofs:
A. The first proof describes two observers, each of whom: 1. Sees the other one moving. 2. Sees a ball launched from him and moving perpendicularly to the direction of motion of the second observer. The second proof describes almost the same scenario, but this time each ball is observed moving in the same line of the relative motion between both observers.
B. Unlike the first proof, the second proof relies on the law of conservation of relativistic mass, so that during the whole process - the sum of the relativistic masses of both balls - is conserved.
C. Indeed, both proofs rely on the law of conservation of momentum: However, the first proof uses the law of conservation of momentum - in order to be allowed to assume, that the momentum of the first ball observed by the first observer, is the momentum of the second ball - as calculated by him - to be the momentum (of this ball) observed by the second observer. On the other hand, the second proof uses the law of conservation of momentum - in order to be allowed to assume, that the sum of - the momentum of the first ball - and the momentum of the second ball, is the momentum of the whole system containing both balls,
D. Unlike the second proof, the first proof is based on the implicit assumption that the distance traveled by a given ball until it collides with the other ball is the same distance - whether it is observed by a given observer - or it is calculated by him to be a distance observed by the other observer. The first proof uses this implicit assumption - in order to logically conclude, that each of the two observers concludes that the ratio between the velocity of a given ball before the collision and the velocity of this ball after the collision - is different from the ratio between the velocity of the other ball before the collision and the velocity of this other ball after the collision - when this second ratio is calculated by him to be a ratio observed by the other observer.
In my opinion, the first proof contains two mistakes: The first mistake is the assumption indicated in Section C on behalf of this proof. The second mistake in this proof is the implicit assumption indicated in Section D on behalf of this proof: For if the ball were a photon - whose velocity is of course calculated by both observers to be observed as constant by both observers, then both ratios discussed in Section D would be identical to 1, unlike the conclusion of Section D on behalf of this proof.
Question: Assuming that paragraphs A to D describe correctly the differences between both proofs, is my opinion indicated in the previous paragraph correct?
2A06:C701:7455:C600:5169:C2D6:AB07:4DE9 ( talk) 21:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)