[north]

Albert suggest that when a mass is going at light speed that it will gain mass.

I agree BUT when a mass , say train is taken to light speed , that actually what happens is that it will gain mass but also what happens is that the mass absorbs enough energy at light speed , that the mass , metal in this case , becomes hotter and hotter , melts , becomes liquid and then becomes a sort of plasma , neg. and pos. ions .

the mass of the train can only absorb so much energy. until it starts to break down

any thoughts?

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by north Albert suggest that when a mass is going at light speed that it will gain mass.

Relativity doesn't say this. An object moving at the speed of light must have zero rest mass.

[north]

Originally Posted by neutralino Relativity doesn't say this. An object moving at the speed of light must have zero rest mass.

perhaps I put it wrong but as you approach the speed of light the more mass an object gains .

but what I'm saying is that , while this is true , it is also possible for that mass to become into an energy state its self.

[Jim Colyer]

If everything is relative, does that mean that relativity itself is relative and that it is only applicable under certain conditions?

Astronomy http://jimcolyer.com/papers/entry?id=2

[neutralino]

Relative to what? Your comment is incredibly general, and does not really mean anything! What "certain conditions" are you talking of?

[dleviwing]

Phil;
A rocket is accelerated by the expansion of gases; a particle is accelerated by magnetic fields, charge attraction / repulsion, and also by electromagnetic radiation. To accelerate anything beyond the speed of light requires you to have a system that already exceeds that velocity and the ability that it can be used to influence the motion of particles; or the train!

You should note that the speed of light is not constant, only the measurement of the speed of light renders the same value in all frames of reference. The speed of light is dependent on the EM medium and that includes spatial density.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim;
Only our measurements are relative since we do not have access to any absolute references nor to instantaneous data information collection.

[vergon]

Originally Posted by north Albert suggest that when a mass is going at light speed that it will gain mass. I agree BUT when a mass , say train is taken to light speed , that actually what happens is that it will gain mass but also what happens is that the mass absorbs enough energy at light speed , that the mass , metal in this case , becomes hotter and hotter , melts , becomes liquid and then becomes a sort of plasma , neg. and pos. ions . the mass of the train can only absorb so much energy. until it starts to break down any thoughts?

Yes, what are you ingesting these days?

The consensus today is that mass is velocity invariable.

If you'll look at Einstein's equation for kinetic energy you will see that mass is invariable. If you look at his equation for momentum, you will see it is variable.

The momentum equation is wrong. I show why in my latest paper "On the Errors of Special Relativity".

I will email a copy to you or anyone that wants one.

Simply ask
vertvergon@gmail.com

[vergon]

Originally Posted by north perhaps I put it wrong but as you approach the speed of light the more mass an object gains . but what I'm saying is that , while this is true , it is also possible for that mass to become into an energy state its self.

What do you mean by "energy state"? Kinetic energy is mass in motion. So the train is already in an energy state. What would cause it to melt into something or other? What is the basis for your assumption?

And incidentally, mass is velocity invariant. Al was wrong.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by vergon What do you mean by "energy state"? Kinetic energy is mass in motion. So the train is already in an energy state. What would cause it to melt into something or other? What is the basis for your assumption?

WRONG Vergon: Kinetic energy is MATTER in motion, not MASS.

Post your paper and I'll help you correct it.

[vergon]

Originally Posted by dleviwing WRONG Vergon: Kinetic energy is MATTER in motion, not MASS. Post your paper and I'll help you correct it.

Pickey, pickey. Mass is the measure of matter.

What does the m stand for in the equation for kinetic energy?

Does it stand for mass or matter?
The equation says "mass in motion", n'cest pas?

I'd love to post my paper. But I'm new here and don't know the rules.
It's 35 pages long and it may be too long. What do you think?

However, I'd be glad to email it to you by email attachent. Just say the word.

I'd be interested in your thoughts -- even the pickey pickey ones

Seriously, I think you will find it very interesting -- and surprising.

I consider it a masterpiece.