Time Dilation Myth, MYTHBUSTED !!! !

[Dirk Van de moortel]

[snip]

The simplest argument I can think of is that if you find that
p=gamma*m*v, then it is not far to go to say that F=dp/dt, althouh
our authority, John Parker, says that it is syntactically
incorrect. :-) I'll have to take the rest of summer off to find out
why.

=========================================
Let p = mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
dp/dt : correct syntax.
d/dt(p) : incorrect syntax.
Only a numbskull like Bonehead Green would write d/dt(p).
Come back Sept 21 when you realise you've fucked up, you clueless bastard.
According to Bonehead, force increases with velocity (the Einstein Expansion
that the fuckwit calls "Lorentz contraction").

Gasp!
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IncorrectSyntax.html

Dirk Vdm

[Uncle Ben]

On Jul 9, 6:04 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"

Uncle Ben says...

The equation that replaces Newton's second law is
F = d/dt(mv/sqrt(1-vv/cc))
For a constant force, the distance travelled is a hyperbolic cosine
function. You can find lots of information about it on wikipedia.

Boy, you learn something new every day. I thought I knew
all there was to know about the spaceship undergoing
constant proper acceleration, but somehow I never
realized that in this problem the force is constant.
At any time t, the acceleration of the rocket, as measured
in the instantaneous inertial reference of the rocket,
is always g.
It's not immediately obvious to me why that should
mean that the force, defined as d/dt(mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)),
should be constant, but that turns out to be the case.
Do you know of a simple argument for why that is the
case?

Can't give a compelling argument either.
Equivalence principle perhaps?
Anyway, the math is pretty clear. I have added a little remark
at the end of
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I learned it from Feynman.  It's in the Lectures somewhere, without
derivation.
I find it amusing that people who argue against accelerated objects in
SR (as opposed to accelerated frames) have no problem with the
corresponding analysis in Gallilean relativity.  Every school child
knows
F=ma, F constant,
yields x = (1/2)at^2.
Uncle Ben
=============================================
Don't you mean  x = (1/2)at^2 * gamma, the Einstein expansion?
"dp/dt = d/dt(p)" -- Bonehead
I find it amusing that Bonehead thinks he's making sense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Strange things are happening in the "mind" of Androcles. We will
probably not understand until autospy.

Meanwhile, live long and entertain us, dear Androcles!

Uncle Ben