Does Velocity Affect Gravitational Red Shift in Light Signals?

[duordi]

Sorry, I won't mention phyosophical opnions again.
I would like to thank Pervect for the referances.

Duane

 

[mendocino]

I agree. These are two different ways of looking at the same thing. Deciding that other one is wrong, doesn't seem a sign of deeper understanding to me. Although it could be true, that the approach that uses merely distances and time, uses in some sense simpler concepts, than the approach that uses also energy.

The use of relativistic mass is based on heuristic grounds and is not a fundamental part of the theory. Why employ an unnecessary concept that is furthering confusion?

Is this what you call "deeper understanding" of relativity theory ?

 

[mendocino]

If you go too fast do you become a black hole?

If someone believe in "relativistic mass", then how to answer this question?

According to relativity the following are true facts:

1> As an object approaches the speed of light, its kinetic energy increases without limit.
2> Energy is related to mass by the formula E = mc2.
3> As an object approaches the speed of light, its length contracts towards zero.
4> If enough mass is squeezed into a sufficiently small space it will form a black hole

Put these facts together and it looks like we should be able to conclude that an object which moves at a speed sufficiently close to the speed of light should collapse to form a black hole.

True or not?

 

[meopemuk]

2> Energy is related to mass by the formula E = mc2.

This is not correct. The correct relativistic relationship between energy and mass is

$$E= \sqrt{m^2c^4 + p^2c^2}$$

where p is system's momentum and mass m is an invariant (i.e., m doesn't depend on system's velocity). The formula you wrote is a particular case of this general relationship when the system is at rest, i.e., p=0

Eugene.