If we start with the premise that you can type an energy field and direction into an object and have it spring into acceleration - is that a feasible premise irrespective of time? — MikeL
You guys really know your philosophy, but I'd like to add to this boundary question the idea of 0.9 repeater. It goes on for infinity, but it never reaches 1. Surely 1 is a fuzzy boundary that is not crossed. — MikeL
we would need a time value on our input boxes, say 20000 joules over 5 seconds. — MikeL
We know that when energy acts directionally on mass it causes acceleration. We know that when we release the energy input, constant velocity results (unless in some other interference field). The magnitude of this constant velocity is dependent on the point of release during the acceleration. The more acceleration it acquired the higher the release velocity. Thus as it continues on ad infinitum at this higher velocity relative to its buddy that didn’t get accelerated, it must be now be holding something inside it that makes it different to its buddy. We know its mass has increased because of the acceleration, so what happened?
There’s not much to play with for a non-quantum mechanist such as myself. We have mass and we have energy. We gave energy, the object acquired mass. Somewhere along the line the energy we gave was swapped for mass. — MikeL
it should be possible to determine which object has the highest velocity relative to the other, which one is moving away the fastest.
If this is possible, it should be also be possible to create a hierarchy of energy states for identical objects and perhaps even come out with a baseline energy configuration (lowest mass), therefore grounding relativity at reference point — MikeL
If you are interested in a deeper level explanation of inertial motion, then the standard physics route is spelt out by Noether's theorem. — apokrisis
And I realise that mass increase is relative to the observer, but everyone is the observer, which means it mass increased, period. — MikeL
Fair enough. You could say it is holding momentum, kinetic energy, a Jedi Forcefield. I don't care. What is it? Can you point inside the atoms and say, other there is the kinetic energy? — MikeL
Motion doesn't make sense without space and time, and space and time don't make sense without motion. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.