particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
josX
a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
You can only come to .999999*the wave speed.
Pushing particles around with electromagnetic phenomena limits the
speeds you can attain to the speed of light!
Nothing to do with relativistic addition of velocities or a speed
limit c!
Anti-SRists, spread the word, spread the word!
:-)))
--
jos
Carol and Matthew
josX wrote:
> Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
> a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>
Where did you get that idea? By the same logic, you can't accelerate an
airplane to a speed faster than the speed of waves (sound) in the fluid
(air) in which the airplane travels.
josX
Very amuzing reply.
Indeed you couldn't move an airplane beyond the speed of sound (only
to .999...999 of it) if you were trying to propell it using sound.
You couldn't move a boat faster then the wavespeed if you were going
to propel it with waves.
Now, if you throw water at a boat, or throw air at an airplane (or out
of it's back) you could go faster.
But are we throwing physical electronic fields at these particles from
behind? nope
There is just a field generated and the particles feel a force from
it. But that field is itself an electromagnetic phenomena. What else
then this can be the cause of the speed limit for accelerators. It
makes sense, where SR doesn't (and never did).
--
jos
Len Gaasenbeek
This only holds true for a displacement hull. Once you get the boat to
plain it can travel faster than its "wave speed".
Enjoy, Len.
..........................................
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:alpsvl$gmt$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Len Gaasenbeek
Correction: That should have read plane instead of plain.
Len
............................................
"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message
news:uo16pia...@corp.supernews.com...
josX
>Dear JosX,
>
>This only holds true for a displacement hull. Once you get the boat to
>plain it can travel faster than its "wave speed".
No you don't understand: /propel a boat by making waves/. Such a boat
will never go faster then the wave speed.
Graham Rounce
Good heavens! Look out chaps, someone's rumbled you at last!
Gregory L. Hansen
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
>a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>
>You can only come to .999999*the wave speed.
>Pushing particles around with electromagnetic phenomena limits the
>speeds you can attain to the speed of light!
>
>Nothing to do with relativistic addition of velocities or a speed
>limit c!
What's wrong with you? I've cited this, haven't you read it yet?
Zrelov, Tiapkin, Farago, "Measurement of the mass of 660 MeV Protons",
_Soviet Physics JETP_ 34(7), No. 3, p. 384 (1958).
For example. The speed may be limited, but the energy and momentum
apparantly can increase without bound. That is not Newtonian, and that
cannot be explained by "the wave can't catch up".
When you have a pion zipping along and it decays to various other
particles, for any decay product heading forward the rest of the decay
products are like a rocket exhaust that pushes it along independently of
any fields in the accelerator. The "wave can't catch up" argument can't
even apply here because the decay doesn't involve external fields,
it's just conservation of momentum.
And when you spin a charged particle around in a magnetic field nothing
has to catch up because the magnetic field is already there, the particle
runs into it and disproves Newton with an increased turning radius and
decreased cyclotron frequency.
And I say again that you're arguing against some wierd caricature of
relativity. If you spent 25% of the time studying relativity that you do
on sci.physics maybe you'll have more effective arguments.
--
"Knowing how to use your power tools properly will greatly reduce the risk
of personal injury." -- Norm Abram
Franz Heymann
Jos, amongst the long list of things you need to get a handle on, you
should add phase velocity versus group velocity. When you have mastered
that, you might care to inform us how you think the (phase? group?)
velocity in a linear accelerator is adjusted to be precisely what the
particle requires to remain in step with the wave and thus to be
accelerated continuously.
Franz Heymann
Uncle Al
>
> Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
> a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
Hydrofoils
Submarines
Aircraft carriers
Cigarette boats
Jet skis
Dolphins
Moron.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Len Gaasenbeek
Dear JosX,
I agree,
Len.
................................................
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:alq72s$42n$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
Franz Heymann
> "Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote:
> >Dear JosX,
> >
> >This only holds true for a displacement hull. Once you get the boat
to
> >plain it can travel faster than its "wave speed".
>
> No you don't understand: /propel a boat by making waves/. Such a boat
> will never go faster then the wave speed.
There is no problem at all. Use a sequence of water wave resonators
each designed with a fairly complicated shape with an axial length much
less than a wavelength. Use a sequence of these, separated from each
other, and excited at suitable relative phases so that the object being
accelerated encounters eavh resonator precisely when the standing wave
formation is in the right phase to accelerate the object. The terminal
speed will be set by the wave amplitudes and the viscosity of the water
rather than by the speed of the waves.
I hasten to add that I have not given thought as to what the shape of
the resonators should be if the particle trajectory is to enjoy
transverse stability.
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
>Where did you get that idea? By the same logic, you can't accelerate an
>airplane to a speed faster than the speed of waves (sound) in the fluid
>(air) in which the airplane travels.
So,
now the electron "has jet engines too"
<LOL>
sorry,
the electron is a boat with no driver
and has no "jet engines" or "thrust of it's own:"
Your energy source "wave push" is limited,
hence "top speed is limited by it"
FTL has not been disproven,
stop creating "invisible walls that do not exist"
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>Dear JosX,
>
>This only holds true for a displacement hull. Once you get the boat to
>plain it can travel faster than its "wave speed".
Len,
the boat can "not have it's own power"
electrons do not have "engines"
you must "push something against the back (and sides to steer)
of the boat constantly"
Franz Heymann
>
> Dear JosX,
>
> I agree,
>
> Len.
Dear Len,
don't top post.
It is possible in principle to design a waterwave accelerator in which
the accelerated object acquires a speed in excess of the speed of free
water waves, because it is possible to conceive of water wave-guide
structures in which the phase velocity is larger than that of a free
wave.
I described one in another post, although I did not express it in the
language I used here. If I had, JosX would not have understood me. As
it is, it is a moot point whether he will understand even the simplified
language I used in that post.
JosX's problem is that he is actually brain dead.
Franz Heymann
josX
>In article <alpsvl$gmt$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
>>a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>>
>>You can only come to .999999*the wave speed.
>>Pushing particles around with electromagnetic phenomena limits the
>>speeds you can attain to the speed of light!
>>
>>Nothing to do with relativistic addition of velocities or a speed
>>limit c!
>
>What's wrong with you? I've cited this, haven't you read it yet?
>
>Zrelov, Tiapkin, Farago, "Measurement of the mass of 660 MeV Protons",
>_Soviet Physics JETP_ 34(7), No. 3, p. 384 (1958).
>
>For example. The speed may be limited, but the energy and momentum
>apparantly can increase without bound. That is not Newtonian, and that
>cannot be explained by "the wave can't catch up".
Stir some soup, you notice how the soup starts going with your spoon?
If you have a sticky soup, things cling to your spoon.
ohhhh!
Gosh, btw, you guys are untrusted since 1905, why should i believe
this mass-increase from a bunch of postulate-believers. Do you buy it
when the pope has seen Jezus ?
>When you have a pion zipping along and it decays to various other
>particles, for any decay product heading forward the rest of the decay
>products are like a rocket exhaust that pushes it along independently of
>any fields in the accelerator. The "wave can't catch up" argument can't
>even apply here because the decay doesn't involve external fields,
>it's just conservation of momentum.
>
>And when you spin a charged particle around in a magnetic field nothing
>has to catch up because the magnetic field is already there, the particle
>runs into it and disproves Newton with an increased turning radius and
>decreased cyclotron frequency.
How does this disproof Newton.
How do anti-science people who accept SR on postulate be trusted with
anything as complex as researching particles.
Taxpayer don't care?
>And I say again that you're arguing against some wierd caricature of
>relativity. If you spent 25% of the time studying relativity that you do
>on sci.physics maybe you'll have more effective arguments.
--
jos
josX
You are saying that, you have accelerated particles with use of electro
magnetic phenomena (electric and magnetic fields), in which the wave
speed is 300,000km/sec in a vacuum, and that you see that you cannot
get your particles beyond 300,000km/sec. Then you bring out your pre-existing
SR paradoxes and claim that explains it, even that you found evidence
for SR.
Really, do i need to say any more?
--
jos
josX
>josX wrote:
>>
>> Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
>> a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
Ah the amuzing Uncle joins us again.
>Hydrofoils
pushed forward by SRists making waves?
>Submarines
pushed forward by SRists making waves?
>Aircraft carriers
pushed forward by SRists making waves?
>Cigarette boats
pushed forward by SRists making waves?
>Jet skis
pushed forward by SRists making waves?
>Dolphins
pushed forward by SRists making waves?
>Moron.
ah that's me!
--
jos
josX
Wow, you actually admitted i am right!
You are talking about a round tube half-filled with water, and to
propel a bathtub ducky in it by making waves with you "very cool sounding
axial wavemakers" (planks that go up&down hehe).
Your duck will never exceed the wavespeed in water Franzy.
--
jos
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: Carol and Matthew lyb...@cmpsource.com
>
>>Where did you get that idea? By the same logic, you can't accelerate an
>>airplane to a speed faster than the speed of waves (sound) in the fluid
>>(air) in which the airplane travels.
>
>So,
>now the electron "has jet engines too"
><LOL>
The electron doesn't. But the muon and various other unstable particles
do, in the form of the decay products that aren't directed along the line
of motion.
>
>sorry,
>the electron is a boat with no driver
>and has no "jet engines" or "thrust of it's own:"
>
>Your energy source "wave push" is limited,
>hence "top speed is limited by it"
Energy and momentum increase without bound, despite a "top speed".
RM Mentock
>
> josX wrote:
> >
> > Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
> > a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>
> Hydrofoils
Well sure that's under separate power. josX is saying, pushing a boat
with *waves*--so I guess he's talking about a boat that's adrift.
--
RM Mentock
C. K. Monet, c'est moi
Eric Gisse
>Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
>a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>
>You can only come to .999999*the wave speed.
Hey fuckhead, did it hurt when you pulled that number out of your ass?
Franz Heymann
That is not the speed in any old vacuum. It is the speed in free space.
Along the axis of an evacuated cylindrical conductor the phase speed
exceeds c by a considerable amount. In fact, in a linear accelerator
very expensive steps have to be taken to slow the wave down to below c
to enable the particles to keep up with it. As soon as you allow the
phase velocity to exceed c, the particles drop out, somewhat like you
dropped out of your physics course when the going got too fast for you.
> and that you see that you cannot
> get your particles beyond 300,000km/sec. Then you bring out your
pre-existing
> SR paradoxes and claim that explains it, even that you found evidence
> for SR.
>
> Really, do i need to say any more?
No. You have walked into the trap already. Your ignorance once again
shines like a lamp.
Franz Heymann
josX
You can't move something faster then c with electromagnetic phenomena.
You are not serious that i buy this story that with electormagnetic
phenomena you can't get things >c, but that you actually "should"
but that this again fails because of SR. If you think i buy that then
you must think i am retarded.
>> and that you see that you cannot
>> get your particles beyond 300,000km/sec. Then you bring out your pre-existing
>> SR paradoxes and claim that explains it, even that you found evidence
>> for SR.
>>
>> Really, do i need to say any more?
>
>No. You have walked into the trap already. Your ignorance once again
>shines like a lamp.
No such trap Franz, you snared yourself.
--
jos
AllYou!
> "Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote:
> >Dear JosX,
> >
> >This only holds true for a displacement hull. Once you get the boat to
> >plain it can travel faster than its "wave speed".
>
> No you don't understand: /propel a boat by making waves/. Such a boat
> will never go faster then the wave speed.
Sure. Can't you imagine it? There are many examples of objects that get
propelled in water by waves of water at speeds which are faster than the
waves. But because you have not been able to figure it out, you have
proofed that it can't be done. Is that it? Do you have proof that it can't
be done?
AllYou!
Do you have proof? Do you? Or did you just do a mind experiment?
josX
You can't propel a boat faster then the wave speed of water by
making waves in the water to propel the boat.
Notice this is not the same as throwing water, or pushing against
water. *Waves*.
--
jos
josX
Go try it AllYou!
--
jos
Franz Heymann
I am not talking about a round tube half filled with water. The phase
velocity under those circumstances will not differ from the phase
velocity in free space. One has to do something a little more clever.
You obviously don't know enough about hydrodynamics to think it out for
yourself. Moreover, I don't plan to spoonfeed you, so you will be in
perpetual ignorance about this one, since you are not going to take the
trouble to learn enough hydrodynamics.
>
> Your duck will never exceed the wavespeed in water Franzy.
It is not true , since I know how to make the effective phase speed of
water waves in a suitable water-wave guide larger than the speed in free
space and you clearly don't.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Newton says the cyclotron frequency of a proton is independent of the
energy of the proton.
Experiment says it decreases as the energy goes up. SR also says so.
You have a short memory in addition to a minuscule power of
comprehension, because you were told about this at least four times.
>
> How do anti-science people who accept SR on postulate be trusted with
> anything as complex as researching particles.
>
> Taxpayer don't care?
>
> >And I say again that you're arguing against some wierd caricature of
> >relativity. If you spent 25% of the time studying relativity that
you do
> >on sci.physics maybe you'll have more effective arguments.
Franz Heymann
Marco Nelissen
> Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
> a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>
> You can only come to .999999*the wave speed.
> Pushing particles around with electromagnetic phenomena limits the
> speeds you can attain to the speed of light!
>
> Nothing to do with relativistic addition of velocities or a speed
> limit c!
Once again, Jos demontrates his utter ignorance...
> Anti-SRists, spread the word, spread the word!
Why do you use the term 'SR' and 'SRists' anyway? Aren't you equally
opposed to General Relativity?
Marco Nelissen
>>There is no problem at all. Use a sequence of water wave resonators
>>each designed with a fairly complicated shape with an axial length much
>>less than a wavelength. Use a sequence of these, separated from each
>>other, and excited at suitable relative phases so that the object being
>>accelerated encounters eavh resonator precisely when the standing wave
>>formation is in the right phase to accelerate the object. The terminal
>>speed will be set by the wave amplitudes and the viscosity of the water
>>rather than by the speed of the waves.
>>I hasten to add that I have not given thought as to what the shape of
>>the resonators should be if the particle trajectory is to enjoy
>>transverse stability.
>
> Wow, you actually admitted i am right!
And here we have concrete proof that in the deluded mind of
Jos Boersema, every comment, even it proves him utterly wrong,
is taken to be confirmation of his delusions.
Eric Prebys
josX wrote:
>
> Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
> a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>
> You can only come to .999999*the wave speed.
> Pushing particles around with electromagnetic phenomena limits the
> speeds you can attain to the speed of light!
>
> Nothing to do with relativistic addition of velocities or a speed
> limit c!
>
> Anti-SRists, spread the word, spread the word!
>
> :-)))
> --
> jos
josX
And this coming from SRists!
LOL!!
>You obviously don't know enough about hydrodynamics to think it out for
>yourself. Moreover, I don't plan to spoonfeed you, so you will be in
>perpetual ignorance about this one, since you are not going to take the
>trouble to learn enough hydrodynamics.
oh i know idiot how you can have a wave press against a bar at over
the wave-speed, but your duck put there won't get up to speed. Try it.
The duck will actually only go slower because of the friction with the
wall.
>> Your duck will never exceed the wavespeed in water Franzy.
>
>It is not true , since I know how to make the effective phase speed of
>water waves in a suitable water-wave guide larger than the speed in free
>space and you clearly don't.
To say that you can't get particles up to speed with electromagnetic
phenomena which move at the exact speed limit you are getting for those
particles, and that this has nothing to do with the speed of those
electromagnetic themselves, is ludecrous beyond belief.
--
jos
josX
Newton was around there?
You are putting words into his mouth that you like there.
>Experiment says it decreases as the energy goes up. SR also says so.
Fine, then you have a mathmodel that works for it.
However, that doesn't mean you have a math-model for coordinate system
transformations for the relative speed of light.
>You have a short memory in addition to a minuscule power of
>comprehension, because you were told about this at least four times.
And still he does'nt parrot it! Damn what an irritating fella.
>> How do anti-science people who accept SR on postulate be trusted with
>> anything as complex as researching particles.
>>
>> Taxpayer don't care?
>>
>>>And I say again that you're arguing against some wierd caricature of
>>>relativity. If you spent 25% of the time studying relativity that you do
>>>on sci.physics maybe you'll have more effective arguments.
--
jos
josX
One should not bother to read GR once encountering SR.
SR is the root of this nonsense.
--
jos
josX
The SRist thinks that you can accelerate something with waves past the
wavespeed of the medium.
And when it doesn't work <g>, he blames it on SR and worships Einstein.
--
jos
Marco Nelissen
Yup, exactly what I said: in the deluded mind of >>Jos Boersema, every
comment, even it proves him utterly wrong, is taken to be confirmation
of his delusions...
Bilge
Re: particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push a
>boat faster then the wavespeed with waves! to usenet:
>Uncle Al wrote:
>>
>> josX wrote:
>> >
>> > Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
>> > a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>>
>> Hydrofoils
>
>Well sure that's under separate power. josX is saying, pushing a boat
>with *waves*--so I guess he's talking about a boat that's adrift.
You obviously cannot push a boat _slower_ than the so-called
wavespeed using only the waves, either. So, that means everything
which is simply "adrift", has a velocity of zero, relative to the
wavespeed.
Bilge
Re: particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot
might relate. Suppose you are traveling with the muppets on the cruise
ship "Miss Piggy" at the "wave speed" of the water and after a week the
muppets threaten to to toss you over the side unless you take a bath.
Seeing no substantial difference in those options, you opt for the bath
after kermit offers you a toy boat to play with. The toy boat moves at
"wave speed" of the water in your bathtub in the same direction that the
"Miss Piggy" is traveling. How fast is the boat in the tub going?
>Notice this is not the same as throwing water, or pushing against
>water. *Waves*.
Notice that posting to usenet is not the same as posting an intelligent
comment and having some statements compile is not the same thing as
programming.
Bilge
>but that this again fails because of SR. If you think i buy that then
>you must think i am retarded.
The fact that you believe any there is any "if ... then ..."
issues regarding your intellectual inferiority to peat moss,
is proof of it.
josX
>josX said some stuff about
>Re: particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot
>>push a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves! to usenet:
>>"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>news:alq72s$42n$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>> "Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote:
>>>> >Dear JosX,
>>>> >
>>>> >This only holds true for a displacement hull. Once you get the boat to
>>>> >plain it can travel faster than its "wave speed".
>>>>
>>>> No you don't understand: /propel a boat by making waves/. Such a boat
>>>> will never go faster then the wave speed.
>>>
>>>Sure. Can't you imagine it? There are many examples of objects that get
>>>propelled in water by waves of water at speeds which are faster than the
>>>waves. But because you have not been able to figure it out, you have
>>>proofed that it can't be done. Is that it? Do you have proof that it
>>>can't be done?
>>
>>You can't propel a boat faster then the wave speed of water by
>>making waves in the water to propel the boat.
>
>Even congressmen aren't that stupid.
haha
You better hope they are Bilge.
> Let's try something to which you
>might relate. Suppose you are traveling with the muppets on the cruise
>ship "Miss Piggy" at the "wave speed" of the water and after a week the
>muppets threaten to to toss you over the side unless you take a bath.
>Seeing no substantial difference in those options, you opt for the bath
>after kermit offers you a toy boat to play with. The toy boat moves at
>"wave speed" of the water in your bathtub in the same direction that the
>"Miss Piggy" is traveling. How fast is the boat in the tub going?
Lol, they really are scraping the bottom now.
Hmm, let's kill em off :-).
erm.. hi "Bilge". Your /bathtub/ is inside the boat. This equates to
a second accelerator in your accelerator being accelerated at c,
and then inside that second accelerator the particles are accelerators.
Me think this isn't the way a particle-accelerator is build.
>>Notice this is not the same as throwing water, or pushing against
>>water. *Waves*.
>
>Notice that posting to usenet is not the same as posting an intelligent
>comment and having some statements compile is not the same thing as
>programming.
You speak from experience.
--
jos
josX
Hey Bilge, up your credibility with your elegant and to-the-point solution
to this:
Twin paradox: 0->.99999c in 1.8 sec
Tripduration: 9*10^9 years
You may define a preferred frame-of-reference during the acceleration
if you prefer, but not afterwards, because to make frames remember
their acceleration and to use that to determine a preferred frame,
is to define the "frame that never accelerated in the history of the
universe" as the de-facto preferred frame (absolute reference frame),
and you would have defined relativity as absolutism.
I think it will do more for you then insults.
--
jos
AllYou!
I have solid evidence that an object in the water can be propelled by a
waterwave at a velocity that exceeds that of the waterwave. Do you have
proof that it's not possible? You made the assertion. do you have the
proof?
AllYou!
> >Sure. Can't you imagine it? There are many examples of objects that get
> >propelled in water by waves of water at speeds which are faster than the
> >waves. But because you have not been able to figure it out, you have
> >proofed that it can't be done. Is that it? Do you have proof that it
can't
> >be done?
>
> You can't propel a boat faster then the wave speed of water by
> making waves in the water to propel the boat.
>
> Notice this is not the same as throwing water, or pushing against
> water. *Waves*.
Once again, you profess, based simply on the limited of your imagination
which is based on what you've perceived to have happened that something is
impossible. But I have proof that is possible and you have no evidence,
even though it's your assertion, that it's impossible. Do you have the
proof? I can proof my position, can you proof yours?
josX
As long as you don't throw water around or at the boat, you can't do it.
Let's get back to reality AllYou: particle accelerators try to accelerate
particles. They do this with electromagnetic phenomena. These phenomena
travel in vacuum at 300,000km/sec. They cannot get the particles to exceed
300,000km/sec.
What is your problem.
Really, you completely have no point to make.
"you can exceed the speed of the particle above 300,000km/sec, but it
doesn't work and that is because of SR-paradoxical nonsensical baseless
tripe" ?
I don't buy it AllYou. I don't. Nobody should.
--
jos
josX
Well AllYou, whatever you may have figured (rolling waves?), if you
have a machine employing a phenomena to propel something, and you can
only get that something to the speed of the phenomena (no suprise, really),
then it's because of the phenomena-speed, not because of your Holy Prophet.
But HEIL EINSTEIN eh?
Give it up AllYou, he was a fake.
--
jos
Len Gaasenbeek
To all,
Although the following example isn't directly related to wave propulsion, it
is interesting to contemplate.
It is possible to use the water current in a river to propel a ferry from
shore to shore in both directions at a maximum speed which is greater than
the speed of the water current that propels the ferry.
First install a steel cable from one shore to the other and equip the ferry
with a set of pulleys so it can travel along the wire in both directions
from shore to shore.
Next equip the ferry with a centre board which can be set at an angle to the
water current. This board will function as a water sail. When it is set at
plus 45 degrees it will propel the ferry one way and when set at minus 45
degrees it will make it travel in the opposite direction.
The interesting thing is that like a sailboat, which can travel faster than
the wind when it comes from the side (abeam), the ferry can also be made to
travel faster than the water that propels it, depending on the size of the
centre board.
Also an ocean wave can throw a surf board up into the air at a higher speed
than at which it is travelling itself.
Yet I agree with JosX that an electromagnetic field can't accelerate a
particle to a speed greater than c, because that is the limiting speed for
both particles and e.m. fields in a given Electromagnetic Frame (or Field)
of Reference (EFOR).
For a more detailed explanation see my Selected Papers at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
Enjoy, Len.
....................................................
Aardvark
> Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
> a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>
> You can only come to .999999*the wave speed.
> Pushing particles around with electromagnetic phenomena limits the
> speeds you can attain to the speed of light!
>
> Nothing to do with relativistic addition of velocities or a speed
> limit c!
>
>
Completely irrelevant, you ridiculous person. The fact that particles
are travelling at 0.9999c means that they ought to display behaviour
that is relativistic. And sure enough, they do. What was your point
exactly?
Gregory L. Hansen
Actually, Van de Graff's have accelerated electrons to several MeV. No
waves at all, just a static electric field that exists from beginning to
end before the electron even starts the trip.
The electrons should have been going faster than light, by Newton's
theory. They weren't, but Newton's theory says they should have been.
--
"Knowing how to use your power tools properly will greatly reduce the risk
of personal injury." -- Norm Abram
josX
That you have been following a scamboy, Einstein, like there was no tomorrow.
Yet, tomorrow did come, today.
--
jos
josX
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>The SRist thinks that you can accelerate something with waves past the
>>wavespeed of the medium.
>>And when it doesn't work <g>, he blames it on SR and worships Einstein.
>
>Actually, Van de Graff's have accelerated electrons to several MeV. No
>waves at all, just a static electric field that exists from beginning to
>end before the electron even starts the trip.
>
>The electrons should have been going faster than light, by Newton's
>theory. They weren't, but Newton's theory says they should have been.
Newtons theory also says that if you jump up and down, you end up
in china: F=m*a. But you gotta apply it wrong first.
If electromagnetic phenomena move at c, then don't be suprised that
particles accelerated with it don't exceed it.
This has nothing to do with your prophet or your religion, use common sense!
--
jos
Gregory L. Hansen
Forget common sense, show me how to apply F=ma here. Do the math.
josX
>In article <alss2q$eid$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>>>In article <als4pk$1jl$2...@news1.xs4all.nl>,
>>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>>Marco Nelissen <mar...@xs4.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The SRist thinks that you can accelerate something with waves past the
>>>>wavespeed of the medium.
>>>>And when it doesn't work <g>, he blames it on SR and worships Einstein.
>>>
>>>Actually, Van de Graff's have accelerated electrons to several MeV. No
>>>waves at all, just a static electric field that exists from beginning to
>>>end before the electron even starts the trip.
>>>
>>>The electrons should have been going faster than light, by Newton's
>>>theory. They weren't, but Newton's theory says they should have been.
>>
>>Newtons theory also says that if you jump up and down, you end up
>>in china: F=m*a. But you gotta apply it wrong first.
>>
>>If electromagnetic phenomena move at c, then don't be suprised that
>>particles accelerated with it don't exceed it.
>>
>>This has nothing to do with your prophet or your religion, use common sense!
>
>Forget common sense, show me how to apply F=ma here. Do the math.
Sense in the collection of your past experience, common sense is the
collection of our collective experience (that which we all share).
We don't all share stepping on the moon, but we do share many other things.
Anyway, just wanted to set the old Einstein-lie right that common-sense
is something filthy (and this coming from Einstein, the king of illogic,
as it all fits so well when you know the truth about this).
Your question: how can we do the math on things we don't fully comprehend
yet. Is it a suprise that you cannot propel a particle with electromagnetic
phenomena beyond the speed of those phenomena, when you encounter this
speed-limit shouldn't your first thought be that it is because you are
using a phenomena which moves at this speed ?
--
jos
Gregory L. Hansen
That would be a tidy explanation if, as I've mentioned before, the energy
and momentum of the particle didn't increase without bound, if the field
in the Van de Graff didn't exist before the electron even entered it, if
such a thing as "transverse" and "longitudinal" masses weren't seen as
necessary in electrodynamics long before Einstein came onto the scene,
etc.
You can wave your hands, make vague generalizations, and thoughtlessly
dismiss all the data you like, but the fact remains that the Newtonian
picture is not sufficient. And the fact remains that your "common sense"
derived from kicking soccer balls and driving to the grocery store is a
long distance from the phenomena discussed here. Your collection of past
experience isn't always reliable when you apply it to things beyond your
experience.
Learn the first thing about testing a theory: deduce quantitative
predictions from the theory, and then run an experiment. Don't tell
Nature what She can and can't do, ask her by running an experiment. And
when She gives you an answer, don't try to argue with Her because you'll
lose.
josX
Mathmodel them, you don't need lengthcontraction/timedilation/relativity
of simulteneity for any of them. You only pseudo-need them to keep your
lies running and not have a nasty expose.
>You can wave your hands, make vague generalizations, and thoughtlessly
>dismiss all the data you like, but the fact remains that the Newtonian
>picture is not sufficient. And the fact remains that your "common sense"
>derived from kicking soccer balls and driving to the grocery store is a
>long distance from the phenomena discussed here. Your collection of past
>experience isn't always reliable when you apply it to things beyond your
>experience.
Arrogance noted.
>Learn the first thing about testing a theory: deduce quantitative
>predictions from the theory, and then run an experiment. Don't tell
>Nature what She can and can't do, ask her by running an experiment.
Look the liars talking!
Imposing a speed limit and not even bothering with a real explanation,
measuring gasjets at 8.3 c and covering it up.
> ask her by running an experiment.
Yes ask her, and then shut up. But you have gone to far, you have
hypothesized V'=V for light (Einstein did, the one you call your Great
Genius).
> And
>when She gives you an answer, don't try to argue with Her because you'll
>lose.
Indeed, and now she hits back at the ones that make claims about her that
they cannot support.
--
jos
AllYou!
> >I have solid evidence that an object in the water can be propelled by a
> >waterwave at a velocity that exceeds that of the waterwave. Do you have
> >proof that it's not possible? You made the assertion. do you have the
> >proof?
>
> As long as you don't throw water around or at the boat, you can't do it.
Buzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong! Do you have proof that it can't be done? Do you?
Because you're wrong. I just want more posts from you on the record to make
sure you're exposed as a fool. You made the assertion, now show me your
proof.
You've said over and over again that imagination should spring from
observations. Well, where are your observations that demonstrate what you
assert is not possible? Where is it?
> Let's get back to reality AllYou:
That's where I've been all along. Welcome. You might enjoy it.
> particle accelerators try to accelerate
> particles. They do this with electromagnetic phenomena. These phenomena
> travel in vacuum at 300,000km/sec. They cannot get the particles to exceed
> 300,000km/sec.
>
> What is your problem.
My problem is that this has been explained to you by folks who know more
about it than me. Their explanations seem very reasonable, and your
refutation is nonsense.
> Really, you completely have no point to make.
I can only make a point to someone who's capable of accepting it. It
doesn't mean that they have to agree, but just acknowledge the point. You
refuse to do even that.
You said that a wave cannot make an object move at a speed faster than that
of the wave. I know and have evidence that it can. So my point is that,
despite the fact that you claim to be grounded in science, despite the fact
that you insist scientific claims require evidence, you make these claims
and have no evidence that they are true. That's my point. You're a
hypocrite and a liar.
> "you can exceed the speed of the particle above 300,000km/sec, but it
> doesn't work and that is because of SR-paradoxical nonsensical baseless
> tripe" ?
No, once again you misstate SR. Can't you understand anything?
> I don't buy it AllYou. I don't. Nobody should.
Just because you don't? You don't buy it because of your proofen inability
to learn. We've been through that already.
Spaceman
>For example. The speed may be limited, but the energy and momentum
>apparantly can increase without bound. That is not Newtonian, and that
>cannot be explained by "the wave can't catch up".
What are you talking about,
you are "making the wave" "keep up"
and never do you get "without bound" measurements.
that is a sad twist.
The wave is pushed at "your speed"
and "your speed only"
it never will travel faster.
(expecially not in a circle with "friction of "free electrons")
<LOL>
You lose!
Go smash up some clocks to find out "how they work"
<LOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>Jos, amongst the long list of things you need to get a handle on, you
>should add phase velocity versus group velocity.
<LOL>
group velocity!
<LOL>
the physicist type and the clock:
They take 2 clocks and smash them together at high speed
to see "how they work"
the mechanic type and the clock:
We take apart the clock "carefully" as to see what is inside
and then put it back together into a working version again.
hmm?
Franz must be the "physicist type"
Spaceman
>Hydrofoils
>Submarines
>Aircraft carriers
>Cigarette boats
>Jet skis
>Dolphins
Uncle Al thinks electrons have
"built in" propulsion systems!
<LOL>
>Moron.
Mechanically illiterate clock God worshipper!
Spaceman
>Well sure that's under separate power. josX is saying, pushing a boat
>with *waves*--so I guess he's talking about a boat that's adrift.
They will twist around this,
It's funny if you watch thier dancing.
and just remember,
JosX and Spaceman and many more joining in slowly
are taking the shots that
are making them dance!
<LOL>
the silly twist dancers are too busy dancing around
researching the clock.
and insead they are dancing around it
worshipping it as a God.
<LOL>
Yet,
an Army of Super Tanks (that shoot soccer balls)
and Star ships (that shoot atomic clocks faulty parts)
"atoms"
has arrived..
They must dance.
or all shots are
direct hits.
:)
Spaceman
> You obviously cannot push a boat _slower_ than the so-called
>wavespeed using only the waves, either.
WRONG!
"that is what they are doing!"
>So, that means everything
>which is simply "adrift", has a velocity of zero, relative to the
>wavespeed.
No,
it usually has a different velocity to the wave. (friction slows it down)
unless it is riding the first peak.
(like a surf board adrift)
but I still have not seen a surf board (alone) ride an entire waves lifespan
Spaceman
anyone can post however they post!
>From: "Franz Heymann" Franz....@btopenworld.com
>
>Dear Len,
>
>don't top post.
you troll!
Spaceman
>I have solid evidence that an object in the water can be propelled by a
>waterwave at a velocity that exceeds that of the waterwave. Do you have
>proof that it's not possible? You made the assertion. do you have the
>proof?
List parts and method.
in other words,
AllYou (nobody).
Recipe of proof please...
and
sign your name if you got an "REAL" soccer balls.
<LOL>
Spaceman
>Actually, Van de Graff's have accelerated electrons to several MeV. No
>waves at all, just a static electric field that exists from beginning to
>end before the electron even starts the trip.
No waves huh?
<LOL>
try checking the "frequencies" inside that "no wave field"
<LOL>
too bad..
you lose..
MANY MANY different waves...
"known as "static" to a laymen.
HA HA!
Gregory L. Hansen
And yet, the energy and momentum can apparantly increase without bound,
even though the speed is limited. E.g.
Zrelov, Tiapkin, Farago, "Measurement of the Mass of 660 MeV Protons",
_Soviet Physics JETP_ 34(7), 3, p. 384 (1958).
Or do you, like JosX, figure you can blithely dismiss any experimental
data that you find inconveniant?
Spaceman
>Forget common sense, show me how to apply F=ma here. Do the math.
Let a=c
so instead you can use,
F=mc
You do some math now.
:)
Spaceman
>Learn the first thing about testing a theory: deduce quantitative
>predictions from the theory, and then run an experiment. Don't tell
>Nature what She can and can't do, ask her by running an experiment. And
>when She gives you an answer, don't try to argue with Her because you'll
>lose.
Nature tells us the clock is goofin' up.
a day "is a day" to all.
You lose!
.
you have ignored "nature"
the twins are the same revs of Earth old WRT the Sun,
no matter what the silly and "malfunctioning" clock states.
AllYou!
> >Once again, you profess, based simply on the limited of your imagination
> >which is based on what you've perceived to have happened that something
is
> >impossible. But I have proof that is possible and you have no evidence,
> >even though it's your assertion, that it's impossible. Do you have the
> >proof? I can proof my position, can you proof yours?
>
> Well AllYou, whatever you may have figured (rolling waves?), if you
> have a machine employing a phenomena to propel something, and you can
> only get that something to the speed of the phenomena (no suprise,
really),
> then it's because of the phenomena-speed, not because of your Holy
Prophet.
No, no, no. That wasn't the question. The question was if a wave can cause
an object floating in the water to move at a velocity which exceeds that of
the wave. That's what I said I have abundant evidence of, and that's what
disproves your postualate for which you have no proof and no evidence. You
made the assertion, and as your definintion of science requires proof, where
is the proof of what you say? Where is it? Give me one experiment which
proves that what you say is impossible is, in fact, impossible.
>
> But HEIL EINSTEIN eh?
> Give it up AllYou, he was a fake.
Your assertion had to do with an object in water, not SR. I can proof that
you are wrong regarding your assertion, and I don't need SR equations to do
it. Why do you assume so? Come on, put up or shut up. Where's your proof?
I'll even accept evidence of its impossibility.
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alsjp3$q0i$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>I have solid evidence that an object in the water can be propelled by a
>>>waterwave at a velocity that exceeds that of the waterwave. Do you have
>>>proof that it's not possible? You made the assertion. do you have the
>>>proof?
>>
>>As long as you don't throw water around or at the boat, you can't do it.
>
>Buzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong! Do you have proof that it can't be done? Do you?
>Because you're wrong. I just want more posts from you on the record to make
>sure you're exposed as a fool. You made the assertion, now show me your
>proof.
>
>You've said over and over again that imagination should spring from
>observations. Well, where are your observations that demonstrate what you
>assert is not possible? Where is it?
How do you want to propell something in free water (like particles are
fully in their chamber) with waves, faster then the wave speed.
I always tell immediately when you are wrong, i don't play tricks with
you, so don't play them on me.
>> Let's get back to reality AllYou:
>
>That's where I've been all along. Welcome. You might enjoy it.
>
>> particle accelerators try to accelerate
>> particles. They do this with electromagnetic phenomena. These phenomena
>> travel in vacuum at 300,000km/sec. They cannot get the particles to exceed
>> 300,000km/sec.
>>
>> What is your problem.
>
>My problem is that this has been explained to you by folks who know more
>about it than me. Their explanations seem very reasonable, and your
>refutation is nonsense.
Evasions evasions, as always from AllYou.
>> Really, you completely have no point to make.
>
>I can only make a point to someone who's capable of accepting it.
That says it all doesn't it. "we can only make points to people who
accept our points immediately"
<snip AllYou-bullshit>
--
jos
Randy Poe
>
> >From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
> >Forget common sense, show me how to apply F=ma here. Do the math.
>
> Let a=c
If you mean c being the speed of light, you have just
assigned a speed to an acceleration. You can't do that, anymore
than you can say "consider a tire with radius 200 lb".
- Randy
Spaceman
>And yet, the energy and momentum can apparantly increase without bound,
>even though the speed is limited. E.g.
Name the "unbound increase in momentum"
you are so full of it,
it is sad.
Robert Kolker
Randy Poe wrote:
>
> If you mean c being the speed of light, you have just
> assigned a speed to an acceleration. You can't do that, anymore
> than you can say "consider a tire with radius 200 lb".
Driscoll actually believes that a tire with radius 200 lb will sell.
That is why he is the world's greatest used tire salesman.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>In article <20020912111906...@mb-fi.aol.com>,
>Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>>From: Carol and Matthew lyb...@cmpsource.com
>>
>>>Where did you get that idea? By the same logic, you can't accelerate an
>>>airplane to a speed faster than the speed of waves (sound) in the fluid
>>>(air) in which the airplane travels.
>>
>>So,
>>now the electron "has jet engines too"
>><LOL>
>
>The electron doesn't. But the muon and various other unstable particles
>do, in the form of the decay products that aren't directed along the line
>of motion.
<ROFLOL>
josX
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>news:alsjpa$q0i$2...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>Once again, you profess, based simply on the limited of your imagination
>>>which is based on what you've perceived to have happened that something is
>>>impossible. But I have proof that is possible and you have no evidence,
>>>even though it's your assertion, that it's impossible. Do you have the
>>>proof? I can proof my position, can you proof yours?
>>
>>Well AllYou, whatever you may have figured (rolling waves?), if you
>>have a machine employing a phenomena to propel something, and you can
>>only get that something to the speed of the phenomena (no suprise, really),
>>then it's because of the phenomena-speed, not because of your Holy Prophet.
>
>No, no, no. That wasn't the question. The question was if a wave can cause
>an object floating in the water to move at a velocity which exceeds that of
>the wave. That's what I said I have abundant evidence of, and that's what
>disproves your postualate for which you have no proof and no evidence. You
>made the assertion, and as your definintion of science requires proof, where
>is the proof of what you say? Where is it? Give me one experiment which
>proves that what you say is impossible is, in fact, impossible.
Physical evidence for facts/starting-points and credible rationale for
good hypotheses, that is my definition of science.
>> But HEIL EINSTEIN eh?
>> Give it up AllYou, he was a fake.
>
>Your assertion had to do with an object in water, not SR. I can proof that
>you are wrong regarding your assertion, and I don't need SR equations to do
>it. Why do you assume so? Come on, put up or shut up. Where's your proof?
>I'll even accept evidence of its impossibility.
What do you think limits the speed of particles in an accelerator to c,
the magical speed limit, or the phenomena used to propell the particles.
Your Prophet, or physics, in other words.
--
jos
TB
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> puked in message
news:20020913131342...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> >From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
> >Actually, Van de Graff's have accelerated electrons to several MeV. No
> >waves at all, just a static electric field that exists from beginning to
> >end before the electron even starts the trip.
>
> No waves huh?
> <LOL>
> try checking the "frequencies" inside that "no wave field"
> <LOL>
> too bad..
> you lose..
> MANY MANY different waves...
> "known as "static" to a laymen.
> HA HA!
Ha Ha, indeed! Again Spacemoron shows that he is unaware of the various
different meanings to the word "static". The operative one here being "not
in motion".
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
>
-- TB
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
>>In article <20020912111906...@mb-fi.aol.com>,
>>Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>>>From: Carol and Matthew lyb...@cmpsource.com
>>>
>>>>Where did you get that idea? By the same logic, you can't accelerate an
>>>>airplane to a speed faster than the speed of waves (sound) in the fluid
>>>>(air) in which the airplane travels.
>>>
>>>So,
>>>now the electron "has jet engines too"
>>><LOL>
>>
>>The electron doesn't. But the muon and various other unstable particles
>>do, in the form of the decay products that aren't directed along the line
>>of motion.
>
><ROFLOL>
What'sa matter, you don't believe in conservation of momentum?
AllYou!
> >>As long as you don't throw water around or at the boat, you can't do it.
> >
> >Buzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong! Do you have proof that it can't be done? Do
you?
> >Because you're wrong. I just want more posts from you on the record to
make
> >sure you're exposed as a fool. You made the assertion, now show me your
> >proof.
> >
> >You've said over and over again that imagination should spring from
> >observations. Well, where are your observations that demonstrate what
you
> >assert is not possible? Where is it?
>
> How do you want to propell something in free water (like particles are
> fully in their chamber) with waves, faster then the wave speed.
If you haven't noticed, that's not evidence or proof. I have proof that a
wave can propell an object in water such that it's velocity is greater than
that of the propelling wave. But now, despite all of your protestations
that science needs proof through experimentation and observation, you have
no proof that your assertion is correct. In fact, you don't have one bit of
evidence that it's impossible. Not one. All you have is that you can't
imagine it. By your own definition, that's not science.
Remember? According to you, something must be observed first before it can
be imagined. Well? you imagined that it's impossible, where's your
observation that it's impossible? Where is it?
> I always tell immediately when you are wrong, i don't play tricks with
> you, so don't play them on me.
All you are is a bag of smoke and mirrors, deceptions, and redefinitions of
words. So don't pretend that you don't play tricks. You're a fraud. So
where's your proof? Where is it? I have mine!
> >> Let's get back to reality AllYou:
> >
> >That's where I've been all along. Welcome. You might enjoy it.
> >My problem is that this has been explained to you by folks who know more
> >about it than me. Their explanations seem very reasonable, and your
> >refutation is nonsense.
>
> Evasions evasions, as always from AllYou.
No, the proof is right here in this NG. Your question has been
satisfactorily answered many times. You just can't stand it when you don't
get to engage in your circular arguments and deceptions.
> >> Really, you completely have no point to make.
> >
> >I can only make a point to someone who's capable of accepting it.
>
> That says it all doesn't it. "we can only make points to people who
> accept our points immediately"
No, you selectively snipped what I've said. The sure sign of a liar and
cheat. I said that you have to acknowledge the point I make, and not
restate it, in order to discuss it. But you won't even go that far. Why?
Because you're a coward. You're afraid to discuss an issue head-on because
you know it will lead to complete disillusion of your assertions. You think
that you'll be exposed as the fraud that you are. The problem is that
you're the only one that doesn't realize that you've already been exposed.
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
>>And yet, the energy and momentum can apparantly increase without bound,
>>even though the speed is limited. E.g.
>
>Name the "unbound increase in momentum"
>
>you are so full of it,
>it is sad.
How about the Russian paper that I cited? 660 MeV protons, and you won't
get 660 MeV from 0.5*mc^2.
The momentum and kinetic energy of particles get much higher than .5*mv^2
says they can.
AllYou!
> >>Well AllYou, whatever you may have figured (rolling waves?), if you
> >>have a machine employing a phenomena to propel something, and you can
> >>only get that something to the speed of the phenomena (no suprise,
really),
> >>then it's because of the phenomena-speed, not because of your Holy
Prophet.
> >
> >No, no, no. That wasn't the question. The question was if a wave can
cause
> >an object floating in the water to move at a velocity which exceeds that
of
> >the wave. That's what I said I have abundant evidence of, and that's
what
> >disproves your postualate for which you have no proof and no evidence.
You
> >made the assertion, and as your definintion of science requires proof,
where
> >is the proof of what you say? Where is it? Give me one experiment which
> >proves that what you say is impossible is, in fact, impossible.
>
> Physical evidence for facts/starting-points and credible rationale for
> good hypotheses, that is my definition of science.
Fine. Where is your physical evidence that a wave cannot propell an object
at a velocity which is faster than the wave? There's not even any credable
rational for it, but remember, according to you, science can't start with
rational, it must start with observations. So where is your evidence of
your wave theory? I have mine, where is yours?
> >> But HEIL EINSTEIN eh?
> >> Give it up AllYou, he was a fake.
> >
> >Your assertion had to do with an object in water, not SR. I can proof
that
> >you are wrong regarding your assertion, and I don't need SR equations to
do
> >it. Why do you assume so? Come on, put up or shut up. Where's your
proof?
> >I'll even accept evidence of its impossibility.
>
> What do you think limits the speed of particles in an accelerator to c,
> the magical speed limit, or the phenomena used to propell the particles.
> Your Prophet, or physics, in other words.
More obfuscation. More evasion. More cowardice. We've talking about an
object in water traveling at common, every-day, observable speeds. We're
not talking about relativistic speeds here. You said that a wave cannot
propel an object faster than the speed of the wave itself. I have evidence
that this is not true. I have evidence that this theory of yours is proven
to be invalid every day, all over the world, at speeds that can be readily
observed by the naked eye.
Don't run away like a little girl! Show me evidence of this theory. Where
is it?
Jan Bielawski
> Your question: how can we do the math on things we don't fully comprehend
> yet.
No, no, no. Just do the math on what you yourself have stated so far.
The data you presented is already here,a ll you have to do is
investigate the consequences of what you wrote. Until you do that
everything you say is just hand waving.
Jan Bielawski
Jan Panteltje
(josX) wrote in <alsr11$bn7$5...@news1.xs4all.nl>:
>ambidextro...@hotmail.com (Aardvark) wrote:
>>jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<alpsvl$gmt$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>...
>>> Particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
>>> a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves!
>>>
>>> You can only come to .999999*the wave speed.
>>> Pushing particles around with electromagnetic phenomena limits the
>>> speeds you can attain to the speed of light!
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with relativistic addition of velocities or a speed
>>> limit c!
>>>
>>> Anti-SRists, spread the word, spread the word!
>>>
>>> :-)))
>>
>>Completely irrelevant, you ridiculous person. The fact that particles
>>are travelling at 0.9999c means that they ought to display behaviour
>>that is relativistic. And sure enough, they do. What was your point
>>exactly?
>
>That you have been following a scamboy, Einstein, like there was no tomorrow.
>Yet, tomorrow did come, today.
>--
>jos
>
I should stay out of this , as I proposed what Jos proposed some years ago,
and never got a reply that convinced me, but I would like to ask Jos:
If the (linear) accellerator is on the earth equator, and it pushes the 'particle' to
.9999999 C (for example), does the velocity of the earth add?
Would you measure a different speed if we turned the accellerator the other way?
(180 degrees?).
After all, then in your theory, the speed of the pusher (the accelerator) needs to be
added or substracted from the 'absolute' speed no?
What do you think?
Place y'r bets.
;-)
Jan
AllYou!
> You can't move something faster then c with electromagnetic phenomena.
>
> You are not serious that i buy this story that with electormagnetic
> phenomena you can't get things >c, but that you actually "should"
> but that this again fails because of SR. If you think i buy that then
> you must think i am retarded.
I don't know what he thinks, but I think that you're retarded.
AllYou!
> oh i know idiot how you can have a wave press against a bar at over
> the wave-speed, but your duck put there won't get up to speed. Try it.
> The duck will actually only go slower because of the friction with the
> wall.
That's your theory. Have you tried it? Do you know that it's true in all
cases? It's not science unless you've tried it. And I know that you have
not tried it, therefore, you're engaging in fantasy, not science.
> >> Your duck will never exceed the wavespeed in water Franzy.
> >
> >It is not true , since I know how to make the effective phase speed of
> >water waves in a suitable water-wave guide larger than the speed in free
> >space and you clearly don't.
>
> To say that you can't get particles up to speed with electromagnetic
> phenomena which move at the exact speed limit you are getting for those
> particles, and that this has nothing to do with the speed of those
> electromagnetic themselves, is ludecrous beyond belief.
Not at all. I can see every day that objects in water are moved along by
the waves at speeds greater than that of the waves. I have proof that it's
possible. All you have is invalid speculation. Do you have any evidence,
any at all, that it's not possible?
AllYou!
> >And here we have concrete proof that in the deluded mind of
> >Jos Boersema, every comment, even it proves him utterly wrong,
> >is taken to be confirmation of his delusions.
>
> The SRist thinks that you can accelerate something with waves past the
> wavespeed of the medium.
> And when it doesn't work <g>, he blames it on SR and worships Einstein.
As with most terms that you use, I have no idea what you mean by an SRist,
but I have proof that your assertion is wrong, and you don't have one shred
of evidence, not one, that it's correct. You said science needs evidence,
that imagination first needs observation (which is the stupidest thing I've
ever heard), so where is one shred of evidence that your theory is valid?
Go ahead, just one?
AllYou!
> >Forget common sense, show me how to apply F=ma here. Do the math.
>
> Sense in the collection of your past experience, common sense is the
> collection of our collective experience (that which we all share).
> We don't all share stepping on the moon, but we do share many other
things.
Once again you invent your own definitions. That's not the definition of
common sense. Not even close. That's why you don't have any.
> Your question: how can we do the math on things we don't fully comprehend
> yet. Is it a suprise that you cannot propel a particle with
electromagnetic
> phenomena beyond the speed of those phenomena, when you encounter this
> speed-limit shouldn't your first thought be that it is because you are
> using a phenomena which moves at this speed ?
He asked for the math, and once again you evade. Do the math.
AllYou!
> >You can wave your hands, make vague generalizations, and thoughtlessly
> >dismiss all the data you like, but the fact remains that the Newtonian
> >picture is not sufficient. And the fact remains that your "common sense"
> >derived from kicking soccer balls and driving to the grocery store is a
> >long distance from the phenomena discussed here. Your collection of past
> >experience isn't always reliable when you apply it to things beyond your
> >experience.
>
> Arrogance noted.
It is arrogant to profer theories with no evidence, and you have none for
yours. And there is nothing in his statement that is arrogant, only the
truth that you are so afraid to confront. An other way of stating what he
said is that you cannot lern as long as you limit what you know to what
you've personnally perceived that you experienced. That's the perfect
deinition of someone who can no longer learn.
AllYou!
"Jan Panteltje" <pant...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:altp4n$88e$1...@reader1.tiscali.nl...
OK, I bet he doesn't answer with anything on point and coherent.
Y.Porat
> In article <20020913151449...@mb-fc.aol.com>,
> Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
> >>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
> >>And yet, the energy and momentum can apparantly increase without bound,
> >>even though the speed is limited. E.g.
> >
> >Name the "unbound increase in momentum"
> >
> >you are so full of it,
> >it is sad.
>
> How about the Russian paper that I cited? 660 MeV protons, and you won't
> get 660 MeV from 0.5*mc^2.
>
> The momentum and kinetic energy of particles get much higher than .5*mv^2
> says they can.
Hansen
i consider you as one who is ready to think
sometimes 'out of the dogma' so ........
i would not bet my head about the folowing idea but i would remind you
a sdiscussion we had sometimes ago, in which i suggested
that
*the indcreace of mass during high speed- is not because a change in
the mass, but -- a growing difficulty (more and more)
do do the job of incrementing more acceleration to the moving object*
i gave the example of driving a space rocket:
it is done by gass hitting the rocket from behind at high speed
and delivering its momentum to the rocket,
now while the speed of rocket is law- there is no problem
but while the speed of rocket rises to neerly
the speed of hitting gas jet ....... need i go on with that
explanation??
now i dont know the mechanism that accelerated a proton
but in principle it is a similar mechanism.
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------
Blue Dot
> to .999...999 of it)
1/3 = .3333333333(ad infinitum)
(1/3) * 3 = 1
(1/3) * 3 = .999999999999 (ad infinitum)
You have absolutlely no notion of physics or mathematics, do you?
josX
It's not, we have no data that V'=V holds for light.
Therefore relativity has no basis in science.
At the VERY least you should present V'=V+v0 to all students as a viable
alternative to
- timedilation contradictions
- fuzzbabbles
- lengthcontraction contradictions
- bending space
- Hawkings worship
- Einstein worship
- relativity gospel
- bogus explanations for particle-accelerator speed limit
- Lorentz formula's
- relativity of simultaneity
- bending space
- wormholes
- minkovski manifolds
- worldlines
- geodesics
What would you think they chose, given a course full relativity,
or full V'=V+v0, given the fact that these two model the same
phenomena (even though we have no direct data from it).
Wanna bet with me?
90% will chose V'=V+v0 (more spare time), 10% should have chosen philosophy
anyway.
--
jos
josX
Depends on your coordinate system.
>Would you measure a different speed if we turned the accellerator the other way?
>(180 degrees?).
Not relevant to the issue. *Given* a certain speed, that speed transforms
into another coordinate system with V'=V+v0.
>After all, then in your theory, the speed of the pusher (the accelerator) needs to be
>added or substracted from the 'absolute' speed no?
No. Completely irrelevant.
>What do you think?
Measure it and we'll know.
>Place y'r bets.
I place my bets on objectivity.
Do you see what science has become?
A betting game (no, really), where if you win often, you gain noteriaty
and people will have religious feelings about you. THAT is how relativity
got adopted.
>;-)
>Jan
--
jos
josX
Evidence, or credible rationale.
SR has neither, but it has contradictions.
--
jos
Bilge
Re: particle-accelerator evidence of SR a hoax: ofcourse you cannot push
>a boat faster then the wavespeed with waves! to usenet:
>ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>>josX said some stuff about
>>
>>>but that this again fails because of SR. If you think i buy that then
>>>you must think i am retarded.
>>
>>The fact that you believe any there is any "if ... then ..."
>>issues regarding your intellectual inferiority to peat moss,
>>is proof of it.
>
>Hey Bilge, up your credibility with your elegant and to-the-point solution
>to this:
My credibility will not improve by demonstrating that I'm too stupid
to realize you won't pay attention to the answer, by going to the effort
to provide one to which you will pay no attention. I'm still waiting
for you to explain what's wrong with the bessel function program I gave
you over a month ago.
[...]
>I think it will do more for you then insults.
As usual, that's what you get for thinking. After soaking your head
in icewater, go ask the television what to do next.
Is it josX or is it memoreX?
Gregory L. Hansen
I'm not sure I'm following you, actually. But the speed of a rocket
relative to its starting point is not constrained by the speed of the
exhaust relative to the engine, and orbital rockets routinely exceed their
exhaust velocity.
An airbreathing jet can't go faster than its exhaust speed because it
collects air for propellant, that's a simple conservation of momentum
problem. But a rocket in a vacuum doesn't have that limitation.
Spaceman
>How about the Russian paper that I cited? 660 MeV protons, and you won't
>get 660 MeV from 0.5*mc^2.
no "unbound momentum there"
the momentum is still
"only as fast as light"
you lose as usual .
>The momentum and kinetic energy of particles get much higher than .5*mv^2
>says they can.
That is not Newton.
F=m*a
where is the "a as momentum" goring higher than c.
Nobody said it fits "Kinetic Energy crap"
Throw a match in a bucket of gas.
Kinetic energy formula lost there too
but,
F=m*a does not..
since it includes "the small stuff" when done correctly.
Too prove Newton wrong,
you can't prove Einstein is wrong for such "proof"
you are twisting Greg,
sad as usual.
Greg,
What don't you get about.
The clock malfunctioned?
that alone wipes all your theories off the chalkboard.
Why do you leave such a mess in front of you
when you can just start from "scratch"
.
:)
Spaceman
>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>> >From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>>
>> >Forget common sense, show me how to apply F=ma here. Do the math.
>>
>> Let a=c
>If you mean c being the speed of light, you have just
>assigned a speed to an acceleration. You can't do that, anymore
>than you can say "consider a tire with radius 200 lb".
Not at all.
(you are swapping a 3D for a 2D)
I am not.
your twist loses as usual.
Consider a tire with a radius of 40 sticks (special ruler thingies) is
what I would be saying.
and Let stick= foot
I am merely "changing a "distance measurement scale and term name"
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <agents...@aol.combination> wrote:
>>From: glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen)
>
>>How about the Russian paper that I cited? 660 MeV protons, and you won't
>>get 660 MeV from 0.5*mc^2.
>
>no "unbound momentum there"
Modern accelerators can get the momentum much higher, but the particles
still go faster than c. There seems to be no limit except technology to
how high the momentum can go, but the particles still go no faster than c.
>
>the momentum is still
>"only as fast as light"
>you lose as usual .
That doesn't even make sense.
>
>
>>The momentum and kinetic energy of particles get much higher than .5*mv^2
>>says they can.
>
>That is not Newton.
>F=m*a
Kinetic energy is what you get you apply an F to a free particle over some
distance. Integrate F=ma over a distance. It's Newton.
>where is the "a as momentum" goring higher than c.
>Nobody said it fits "Kinetic Energy crap"
If you want particle physics described by Newtonian mechanics, than it
must fit that kinetic energy crap. If it doesn't fit the kinetic energy
crap, then Newtonian mechanics fails.
>
>Throw a match in a bucket of gas.
>Kinetic energy formula lost there too
And a particle decays, throwing some fragments forward and some fragments
backward. Internal energy is liberated. But it only applies to particle
physics when it's a bucket of gasoline?
>but,
>F=m*a does not..
>since it includes "the small stuff" when done correctly.
>
>Too prove Newton wrong,
>you can't prove Einstein is wrong for such "proof"
>you are twisting Greg,
>sad as usual.
>
>Greg,
>What don't you get about.
>The clock malfunctioned?
>
>that alone wipes all your theories off the chalkboard.
>Why do you leave such a mess in front of you
>when you can just start from "scratch"
Which part of the experimental testing of a quantitative prediction of a
theory are you having trouble with? Newtonian mechanics makes very
definite predictions about how particles behave. We know how particles
near the speed of light behave because countless experiments have been
done on them. Newton does not faithfully describe it. Einstein does. No
matter how many clocks you break, Newton still does not describe what
particles do at high speeds, and Einstein does.
Spaceman
>Driscoll actually believes that a tire with radius 200 lb will sell.
>That is why he is the world's greatest used tire salesman.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
Dear Mr Kolker,
What is your problem?
Do you have nothing better than cheap schoolboy insults?
Do you have any clue about "how clocks work"
Are you actually still in school and that is why you are so ignorant?
Why do you lie about me like you do above?
Why do you make up little fantasies in your head about me
doing things that I do not?
Are you obsessed with a "clock God named atomic"
again,
What is "YOUR" problem,
can't figure out clocks faults huh?
Or is it you just "don't want to"?
You are a sad ass researcher,
you get an F- in research technique.
Spaceman
>What'sa matter, you don't believe in conservation of momentum?
I do,
but it is not "jet propulsion"
You twist way too much!
<LOL>