Weight?

If the earth is moving with constant acceleration.

Then einstiens theory of reletivaty is surely meaningless. It states that the faster a body with mass goes the heavier it gets.

And once a body with mass travels at the speed of light it has infinate mass, which is impossible to have.

First of all have we not accelerated enough to reach the speed of light? and if not then how fast are we traveling at the moment?

and secondly, if the earth and everything on it is accelerating then we would all be gaining mass as seconds go passed.

that doesnt happen.

If the theory of relativity is wrong then please give me one in its place stating that we can accelerate without gaining mass?

Read the FAQ.
Refer to the Equivalence Principle.

Did you really think you were just going to come on here and in one post, not knowing anything about FE, disprove it?

Read the FAQ.

If the earth is moving with constant acceleration.

Then einstiens theory of reletivaty is surely meaningless. It states that the faster a body with mass goes the heavier it gets.

It sure does.  Yet I don't see why SR is meaningless.

And once a body with mass travels at the speed of light it has infinate mass, which is impossible to have.

An object with mass can never reach the speed of light.

First of all have we not accelerated enough to reach the speed of light? and if not then how fast are we traveling at the moment?

1. No.
2. Less than the speed of light.

and secondly, if the earth and everything on it is accelerating then we would all be gaining mass as seconds go passed.

that doesnt happen.

No, it doesn't.  Due to relativity.

Quote from: Shadro on March 06, 2007, 11:55:32 AM

If the earth is moving with constant acceleration.

Then einstiens theory of reletivaty is surely meaningless. It states that the faster a body with mass goes the heavier it gets.

It sure does.  Yet I don't see why SR is meaningless.

Quote

And once a body with mass travels at the speed of light it has infinate mass, which is impossible to have.

An object with mass can never reach the speed of light.

Quote

First of all have we not accelerated enough to reach the speed of light? and if not then how fast are we traveling at the moment?

1. No.
2. Less than the speed of light.

Quote

and secondly, if the earth and everything on it is accelerating then we would all be gaining mass as seconds go passed.

that doesnt happen.

No, it doesn't.  Due to relativity.

Sometimes I get sick of these same idiotic posts. Why do they not read the FAQ?

Read the FAQ.
Refer to the Equivalence Principle.

Did you really think you were just going to come on here and in one post, not knowing anything about FE, disprove it?

Read the FAQ.

When did i try prove FE's theories wrong or say that any of FE's theories were wrong?

All i did was ask if einstiens theory was meaningless and if there was something to show the contrary.

Pay no attention to astronomy 101, he's become a troll.

If the earth is moving with constant acceleration.

Then einstiens theory of reletivaty is surely meaningless. It states that the faster a body with mass goes the heavier it gets.

It does state that, yes- when an object attains a high velocity with respect to a given frame of reference, its mass increases from that frame of reference. Relativity is not meaningless, and is perfectly compatible with FE.

And once a body with mass travels at the speed of light it has infinate mass, which is impossible to have.

It may or may not be impossible to have that, but the Earth is not traveling at the speed of light. It is traveling very near the speed of light relative to some objects, and not very quickly at all relative to other objects.

First of all have we not accelerated enough to reach the speed of light? and if not then how fast are we traveling at the moment?

No, we are not traveling at lightspeed, and never will. Of course, it all depends on what you are measuring Earth's velocity relative to; relative to some reference points, we are approaching lightspeed, and from those reference points our acceleration would appear to be decreasing. Relative to other frames, we aren't moving particularly quickly, and still retain a constant velocity of 9.8m/s/s.

and secondly, if the earth and everything on it is accelerating then we would all be gaining mass as seconds go passed.

that doesnt happen.

Relative to some frames of reference, we are gaining mass- but only for those frames with respect to which we are approaching lightspeed. Relative to us, the Earth's velocity is zero, so from our reference point its mass and acceleration remain constant.

What equation stats you gain mass as you go faster?

What equation stats you gain mass as you go faster?

Thats what I thought. 

This one:

M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

where M is the relativistic mass and m is the invariant mass.

This one:

M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

where M is the relativistic mass and m is the invariant mass.

thats m = Gammaxm.  E=mc^2 is really E= gamma mc^2.  Mass doesnt change, Energy does. 

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 07, 2007, 06:10:25 PM

This one:

M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

where M is the relativistic mass and m is the invariant mass.

thats m = Gammaxm.   

Uh, that's what I said.

Mass doesnt change, Energy does.

What is the relationship of mass and energy?

Quote from: sokarul on March 07, 2007, 07:03:46 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 07, 2007, 06:10:25 PM

This one:

M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

where M is the relativistic mass and m is the invariant mass.

thats m = Gammaxm.   

Uh, that's what I said.

Quote

Mass doesnt change, Energy does.

What is the relationship of mass and energy?

E=gammamc^2 like I already said.
This is another topic that can be argued.   
I don't like people grouping mass with gamma to make a super mass.  That would be like saying gamma x pepsi=PEPSI.  Where did the extra pepsi come from?  I will stick to how my teacher put it, it is wrong to group gamma and mass together.

[/quote]

Sometimes I get sick of these same idiotic posts. Why do they not read the FAQ?
[/quote]

Probally because the FAQ is just BS written by foolish believers of a ridiculous and unscientific theory.  But then again, that what people come here looing for. 

The OP needs to lurk moar.

Quote from: TheEngineer on March 07, 2007, 06:10:25 PM

This one:

M = m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

where M is the relativistic mass and m is the invariant mass.

thats m = Gammaxm.  E=mc^2 is really E= gamma mc^2.  Mass doesnt change, Energy does. 

In einstiens theory of relativity or his formula E=mc² energy AND mass can change. not only energy.

When an object with mass is traveling at the constant c² any energy added turns into mass meaning mass changes.

In the element radium. The solid lets off radiation which is an energy at the expense of tiny unmeasurable pieces of mass. here again mass changes, or is destroyed and energy is created.

But enough of this.

I am a sixteen year old student still in grade eleven so i'm sorry if i have made mistakes in what i have said and in what i have asked and sorry astronomy 101, all i intended on doing was asking questions and finding answers for an oral i have to present. I never meant to offend anyone by seeming like i was trying to proove any theories wrong!

Pay no attention to astronomy 101 or Marquis, they have become trolls.