On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

No Newtonians in this crowd. Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

Google to the rescue:
http://asistm.duit.uwa.edu.au/synchrotron/downloads/pdfs/chapter11_7.pdf

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
mr = relativistic mass
mo = mass at rest
v = velocity of particle
c = speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
mr/mo = 1/ 1 - 0.813^0.5 = 1/ (1 - 0.902) = 1/ 0.0984 = 10.2

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a
gold star?

(Somebody please check my arithmetic as I forgot to eat dinner, it's
after midnight, my brain is mush, and my calculator battery is fading
fast).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:13:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

No Newtonians in this crowd. Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to 167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. Some of us know its mass at this
speed. A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

Google to the rescue:
http://asistm.duit.uwa.edu.au/synchrotron/downloads/pdfs/chapter11_7.pdf

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
mr = relativistic mass
mo = mass at rest
v = velocity of particle
c = speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
mr/mo = 1/ 1 - 0.813^0.5 = 1/ (1 - 0.902) = 1/ 0.0984 = 10.2

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a
gold star?

(Somebody please check my arithmetic as I forgot to eat dinner, it's
after midnight, my brain is mush, and my calculator battery is fading
fast).

All wrong. No gold star for that mess. I just hate it when I click
"send" and only then discover my arithmetic error. Rev 1.0 follows:

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
mr = relativistic mass
mo = mass at rest
v = velocity of particle
c = speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
mr/mo = 1/ (1 - 0.813)^0.5 = 1/ (0.187)^0.5 = 1/ 0.432 = 2.31

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 2.3 times
that of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Maybe
a silver star?



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Sep 17, 3:25*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:13:47 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:





On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

No Newtonians in this crowd. *Perhaps it was the relativistic term
"speed of light" that confused this group so much. *Let's restate it
in units that Newton could have appreciated.

We know that we can accelerate an electron to *167,770 miles/s - it
happens every femtosecond in one of any 100 billion crt
displays still glowing in the world. *Some of us know its mass at this
speed. *A question for the Newtonian philosopherz:
* * * *"What is the mass of a photon traveling at 167,770 miles/s?"

Google to the rescue:
http://asistm.duit.uwa.edu.au/synchrotron/downloads/pdfs/chapter11_7.pdf

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
*mr = relativistic mass
*mo = mass at rest
*v *= velocity of particle
*c *= speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
*mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
*mr/mo = 1/ 1 - 0.813^0.5 = 1/ (1 - 0.902) = 1/ 0.0984 = 10.2

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. *It doesn't matter what particle. *Do I get a
gold star?

(Somebody please check my arithmetic as I forgot to eat dinner, it's
after midnight, my brain is mush, and my calculator battery is fading
fast).

All wrong. *No gold star for that mess. *I just hate it when I click
"send" and only then discover my arithmetic error. *Rev 1.0 follows:

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
* mr = relativistic mass
* mo = mass at rest
* v *= velocity of particle
* c *= speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - 0.813)^0.5 = 1/ (0.187)^0.5 = 1/ 0.432 = 2.31

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 2.3 times
that of the particle at rest. *It doesn't matter what particle. *Maybe
a silver star?

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 * * * * *
#http://802.11junk.com* * * * * * *
#http://www.LearnByDestroying.com* * * * * * * AE6KS- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not correct. It's not quite as simple as e = m*c**2. You must use the
Lorentz transformation.

Using the same values you have assiged to c and v, the correct
equation would be:

mr = mo/SQRT(1 - v**2/c**2)

As v = c, mr must = infinity (therefore no mass can reach c)

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:09:44 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 17, 3:25*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
wrote:

mr / mo = 1 / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5

whe
* mr = relativistic mass
* mo = mass at rest
* v *= velocity of particle
* c *= speed-o-light = 186,000 miles/sec

For v = 167,700 miles/sec
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - (167,700^2 / 186,000^2))^0.5
* mr/mo = 1/ (1 - 0.813)^0.5 = 1/ (0.187)^0.5 = 1/ 0.432 = 2.31

So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 2.3 times
that of the particle at rest. *It doesn't matter what particle. *Maybe
a silver star?

Not correct. It's not quite as simple as e = m*c**2. You must use the
Lorentz transformation.

I didn't use e = m * c^2

Using the same values you have assiged to c and v, the correct
equation would be:

mr = mo/SQRT(1 - v**2/c**2)

That's exactly the same equation I used but with different notation.
It's still the square root:
SQRT(whatever) = (whatever)^0.5

Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

I also divided both sides of the equation by mo to get the ratio of
relativistic mass to the at rest mass.

As v = c, mr must = infinity (therefore no mass can reach c)

Yep.
Go FTL (faster than light), and you get a cosmic speeding ticket.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

That's the convention I use for exponents.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

That's the convention I use for exponents.

Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham
radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some
70 cm off the cloud.

Dave wrote:
This bull**** has nothing to do with ham radio.

Exponents used in such terms as P = I^2R have
nothing to do with ham radio?

That's a really sad statement about the present
technical level of amateur radio.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:49:04 +0000, Dave wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Is there a standard notation or style for arithmetic and
exponentiation for usenet posting? I've been switching around using
different styles almost at random over the years.

For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

That's the convention I use for exponents.

Why don't you two get a room? This bull**** has nothing to do with ham
radio. However, maybe if we ionized your hot air we could bounce some
70 cm off the cloud.

I've always suspected that some hams hated math and other technical
subjects. While it is conceivable that you could build a ham antenna
without using math, I don't think the results would be optimal. There
are also those that advocate converting ham radio from a technical
hobby, to a sport, where the technical aspects are diminished to the
point of extinction, and the operational exercises of contesting, DX,
CW, and rag chewing are predominant. No math required. Perhaps the
FCC could balkanize the ham bands into technical and non-technical
sub-bands, where the clueless and those that still design, calculate,
and build their own equipment can be seperated for their own safety.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Cecil Moore wrote:
For exponents (HTML superscripts) some browsers convert

c^2 to csup2/sup HTML.

:-) That was c ^ 2 without the spaces. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
So, the mass of the particle at 90% the speed-o-light is 10 times that
of the particle at rest. It doesn't matter what particle. Do I get a
gold star?

That doesn't work for photons which are particles with
zero rest mass.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com