🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Robert L. Hutton wrote:

> Stephan A. Manchir wrote:
> > 
> > Dries van Oosten <dvoosten@fys.ruu.nl> wrote, well, typed, actually
> > (unless they have a newton or other pen based computer, but that's not
> > important right now, oh, or voice recognition):
> > 
> > >On 17 Apr 1997, Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri wrote:
> > 
> > As I understand it, If you want to use the whole "mass increases"
> > thing, you have to differientiate between inertial and gravitational
> > mass (even tho every thing we know of has equal amounts of each, and
> > prolly everything does). Otherwise, the explanation of just having the
> > 
> > momentum increase is good enough. it's all just how you look at it.
> > That whole mass increase thing always bothered me too, btw. But not
> > nearly as much as people who state that warp drive works by lessening
> > a ships mass. Gah! An infinite amount of 1/2 of something is still
> > just as infinite as a whole something. And let's not even get into if
> > 9.999... = 10. Remember that? :)
> > 
> > >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970417182445.29917B-100000@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>,
> > >> Dries van Oosten  <dvoosten@fys.ruu.nl> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >doesn't change. If it would, what you say would have to be true and what
> > >> >you say can't be true since this would mean that light (moving at c) would
> > >> >see all masses infinitely large. This would mean that all masses would
> > >> >"attract" light with the same strength. This is absurd. Every object would
> > >> >be a black hole. Correct me if I make a mistake here, but this is how I
> > >> >see it.
> > >>
> > >> Just because two quantities are infinite doesn't mean they are equal.
> > >> If you look at the ratio of the observed masses as the observer's
> > >> velocity is taken to c, it will be different from 1.
> > 
> > >This is not what I meant. What I meant is that if light sees all mass as
> > >infinite, everything would be a black hole.
> > 
> > "There is an art, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies
> >  in learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss"
> >  - Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
> > sam14@po.cwru.edu              http://k2.scl.cwru.edu/~sam14
> 
> What you have here is light seeing an infinitely large mass 
> infinitessimally close to it attracting it within an infinitessimal 
> period of time.  Just as lim((1 + 1/n)^n) as n goes to infinity does not 
> equal zero or infinity (in fact, it equals 2.71828182....), neither 
> (necessarily) does the force acting on light.

Normally I would agree with you, but the problem with black holes is that
once you get in, you don't get out (not counting tunneling effect and that
kinda stuff). So when you pass an object of infinite mass at an
infinitessimally close range, you'll spend the rest of your life and
beyond falling down the gravity well.  

> 
> Robert Hutton
> 
> 


Dries van Oosten

Eat any good books lately?