Question for the Relativity deniers
Corr Edwards
of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic protons?
I'll give you lot until after the weekend to come up with a coherent
answer.
Corr
Spaceman
> How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision
> energies of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic
> protons?
By using Newtonian forces that cause the particles to move.
And by using Newtonian forces to keep the particles going
around the circle.
And by using Newtonian forces to make the electricity that
makes it all work.
And by using Newtonian forces that made the coal, oil, gas, wind,
hydroelectric, and solar power that keeps the LHC powered.
:)
Solar Power you say?
YES!
Solar power is also Newtonian if you actually think about it
correctly, but of course Einstein dingleberries could never do that.
:)
Hmm?
So now your turn,
How did you get that much "energy" without using Newtonian forces
Mr dingleberry?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
Artfishlintlgenz
wrote:
"ah Newton to Corr, corr-in wiv yore corr-ekshun preze, ovah"
Art
Igor
<space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
> Corr Edwards wrote:
> > How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision
> > energies of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic
> > protons?
>
> By using Newtonian forces that cause the particles to move.
> And by using Newtonian forces to keep the particles going
> around the circle.
They tried that. It didn't work. Cylcotrons required relativistic
corrections to keep the particles moving in a circle, moron.
> And by using Newtonian forces to make the electricity that
> makes it all work.
You've obviously never heard of Maxwell's equations, which are already
relativistic invariants. Galilean tranformation won't work, you
imbecile.
> And by using Newtonian forces that made the coal, oil, gas, wind,
> hydroelectric, and solar power that keeps the LHC powered.
> :)
Well, you are an expert on wind. I'll give you that. You certainly
suck and blow a hell of a lot.
> Solar Power you say?
> YES!
> Solar power is also Newtonian if you actually think about it
> correctly, but of course Einstein dingleberries could never do that.
Actually solar power is based on quantum mechanics, another area that
you are completely ignorant about, shit for brains.
Androcles
"Corr Edwards" <co...@glmaill.com> wrote in message
news:6h3qsqF...@mid.individual.net...
> How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision energies of
> 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic protons?
How did you relativistic fuckheads get collision energies of (1.1 E-6
Joules) when
you haven't even switched it on yet? Clairvoyance, was it?
> I'll give you lot until after the weekend to come up with a coherent
> answer.
You can fuck off, we don't need prophets.
Spaceman
> On Aug 20, 8:44 pm, "Spacebetweenearsman"
> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>> Corr Edwards wrote:
>>> How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision
>>> energies of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic
>>> protons?
>>
>> By using Newtonian forces that cause the particles to move.
>> And by using Newtonian forces to keep the particles going
>> around the circle.
>
> They tried that. It didn't work. Cylcotrons required relativistic
> corrections to keep the particles moving in a circle, moron.
Are you really that brainwashed?
What they are doing is Newton based and you are just to brainwashed
to ever figure out why.
You truly are a clueless brainwashed dingleberry.
Relativistic corrections?
What time do they use to calculate the electrons speed?
The time according to the accelerator control room, or the
time according to the particle you dang paradox ape?
LOL
Winston Smith
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:CR4rk.43958$Ft5....@newsfe29.ams2...
Ian Parker
question. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with faith.
The reason for that faith we need not go into but it is similar to
Creationalism. I believe it is linked to antigravity.
No arguments about the age of the Earth, the fossil record etc etc are
ultimately convincing. The best arument I think is to ask who Cain
married. According to Genesis after Cain killed Abel he lived to the
east of Eden, married and raised a family. Who did he meet? All the
humans are after all descended from that first couple.
Still it does not cut any ice. What can you say?
- Ian Parker
Androcles
"Winston Smith" <wintst...@ministryoflove.gov> wrote in message
news:g8iqf3$5b4$1...@aioe.org...
<yawn>
Wintston Winston can't spell his own name.
PD
wrote:
> Corr Edwards wrote:
> > How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision
> > energies of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic
> > protons?
>
> By using Newtonian forces that cause the particles to move.
> And by using Newtonian forces to keep the particles going
> around the circle.
Oh, sure, there are forces and forces are described by Newton, all
right. That doesn't mean that whenever there are forces involved, then
it's all Newtonian physics.
The thing is, see, Newtonian physics also tells you how to do
*calculations* with the forces and with the momenta and with the
energies. And it tells you how much energy is possible if you collide
two particles with a certain velocity. There is *no way* in Newtonian
physics to add anything missing (no extra forces, no things unseen)
that will change the answer for how much energy you can *possibly* get
from two particles colliding with a certain velocity. And the answer
is wrong. Newtonian physics tells you there is NO WAY (missing forces
or not) that you can get 7TeV from two particles colliding at that
velocity.
Your impression that Newtonian physics can accommodate anything if you
just add in some unseen forces is simply wrong.
PD
Spaceman
> On Aug 20, 7:44 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> Corr Edwards wrote:
>>> How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision
>>> energies of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic
>>> protons?
>>
>> By using Newtonian forces that cause the particles to move.
>> And by using Newtonian forces to keep the particles going
>> around the circle.
>
> Oh, sure, there are forces and forces are described by Newton, all
> right. That doesn't mean that whenever there are forces involved, then
> it's all Newtonian physics.
>
> The thing is, see, Newtonian physics also tells you how to do
> *calculations* with the forces and with the momenta and with the
> energies. And it tells you how much energy is possible if you collide
> two particles with a certain velocity. There is *no way* in Newtonian
> physics to add anything missing (no extra forces, no things unseen)
> that will change the answer for how much energy you can *possibly* get
> from two particles colliding with a certain velocity. And the answer
> is wrong. Newtonian physics tells you there is NO WAY (missing forces
> or not) that you can get 7TeV from two particles colliding at that
> velocity.
So you just know for sure that there is nothing smaller even though
you are limited to seeing a certain "smallness".
You poor thing.
> Your impression that Newtonian physics can accommodate anything if you
> just add in some unseen forces is simply wrong.
Prove it then!
Prove there is nothing smaller than the smallest thing we can see right now.
You are a fool PD.
You close your "science" doors and turn the building into a church.
So are you going to answer, What frames time do you use?
The accelerators frame, or the electrons frame Mr Parradox Dingleberrie?
PD
wrote:
You didn't pay attention. Please focus. No number of new, yet-unseen
things adding forces will EVER change the maximum amount of energy
Newtonian physics says is available to two particles colliding at a
certain speed. Adding boojums and wheezits to the list of Newtonian
forces does not change that number. That number, taken from what
Newtonian physics says, is wrong, because it says you cannot
*possibly* get 7TeV from two protons colliding at the velocity,
boojums and wheezits or no. But you can. And you do.
Spaceman
You really are clueless huh?
The maximum amount Netwon says is available does depend
on any of the "smaller" stuff also.
You would rather say, the stuff is not there and that is all.
You sure love to stick your head in the boojums and wheezits of Einstein.
LOL
OG
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:6I2dnafZLeHlOzDV...@comcast.com...
No - according to Newtonian physics, the kinetic energy of a body is 1/2
mv^2, regardless of the composition of the body.
PD
> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
"But... but.... that cannot BE! That is UNACCEPTABLE!"
Igor
wrote:
I'm going to stop responding to your stupid posts before the internet
cops get me for abusing a mentally deficient minor.
Spaceman
And if you don't include spin of the body you get it all wrong.
How about "vibration also"?
Are you truly positive there is only the linear motion alone
that is producing the KE?
It sure seems to prove you are missing the other "motions"
that also have KE.
Especially if you are only using KE= 1/2 mv^2
So you are still missing "forces" and of course those
forces need a lot more 1/2 mv^2 stuff to figure out for
spin and vibrations.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
:)
Spaceman
Very true!
The numbers don't match so that should prove you are missing
simple other "forces" that you are simply ignoring to come up
with your ingorance.
:)
Spaceman
> I'm going to stop responding to your stupid posts before the internet
> cops get me for abusing a mentally deficient minor.
So you would still rather ignore simple facts I speak of and now
call me names and plonk me..
Thanks.
:)
OG
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> OG wrote:
>> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>> news:6I2dnafZLeHlOzDV...@comcast.com...
>>> PD wrote:
>>>> On Aug 21, 10:17 am, "Spaceman"
>>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>>>>> PD wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 20, 7:44 pm, "Spaceman"
>>>>>> <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
>>>>>>> Corr Edwards wrote:
>>>>>>>> How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision
>>>>>>>> energies of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic
>>>>>>>> protons?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> By using Newtonian forces that cause the particles to move.
>>>>>>> And by using Newtonian forces to keep the particles going
>>>>>>> around the circle.
>>
>> 1/2 mv^2, regardless of the composition of the body.
>
> And if you don't include spin of the body you get it all wrong.
> How about "vibration also"?
> Are you truly positive there is only the linear motion alone
> that is producing the KE?
> It sure seems to prove you are missing the other "motions"
> that also have KE.
> Especially if you are only using KE= 1/2 mv^2
> So you are still missing "forces" and of course those
> forces need a lot more 1/2 mv^2 stuff to figure out for
> spin and vibrations.
>
> --
Go on then. Explain fully how you get up to 7 TeV (1.1E-6 Joules) using
Newtonian physics.
If you can.
G. L. Bradford
"Ian Parker" <ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:94a3f23e-f2d3-49e8...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
========================
"Who did he meet?"
You don't read much history, do you? Way back when, the only "humans"
existing anywhere were the people of your own particular group ("The
People"). If you married -- or coupled -- outside of your own group, you
married humanoid animals, barbarians, or savages, not humans. The Hebrews
were only one of a great many groups with such a belief system. The Japanese
come to mind as one of the last major peoples to really push the belief
(until August, 1945, that is). So did the Germans for a while after Hitler
and the Nazis came to power (building on Nietzsche's prepping). Adam and Eve
(by whatever other names there are for them) belong to many peoples, many
cultures, many mythologies and legends, that reach way back into antiquity.
GLB
========================
Ian Parker
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
saying is that if you take the Bible literally you get inconsistency.
Adam and Eve are in fact quite interesting and have some factual
content. During the Ice Age sea levels were lower than they are today.
Britain was firmly joined to Europe and there was Doggerland and the
Dogger hills. The Thames was a tributary of the Rhein.
In thre Middle East the Garden of Eden had 4 rivers flowing into it.
This gives one location - the Persian Gulf and the Shatt al Arab. The
GOE is now under the sea. Knowing this we can put the legend together
fairly acurately. Rising sea levels forced the people out, they did
not understand anything about the ice sheets of Europe and they
imagined they had committed some terrible sin.
Most large cities today are on the coast, this facilitates trade. You
have a city where you have trade. The Ice Age or Dryad was no
exception. This goes a long way to explaining legends if you do not
take a completely literal view.
- Ian Parker
Ian Parker
> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>
> news:24-dnW3AatdwuzPV...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > OG wrote:
> >> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
>
I think we ought to look at the nature of collision. The LHC has 2
beams of 7TeV giving a collision energy of 14TeV. Now what energy in
the FOR of one proton does the other proton have?
A - We transform velocities by matrix multiplication giving an energy
of 49PeV (assuming 1GeV for Proton's rest energy (rough and ready
here). This means that the energy (effective) imparted to a target is
2√7000GeV or about 170GeV. Acording to Newtonian dynamics the imact
energy is simply 3.5TeV. What is the effective energy? I think it is
170GeV. This is why you have intersecting beams. At relativisic speeds
the effective energy where we have a stationary target goes as the √
of incident energy.
- Ian Parker
Spaceman
Do you think they just got that from nothing?
Sheesh man,
Why don't you get a clue how particle accelerators even work.
Spaceman
Most of the energy is "keeping the dang little things on track"
The energy keeping the cornering possible is NOT energy
translating into forward motion.
Sheesh man!
Try re-thinking you figures and remove the "cornering forces"
energy used from the final impact forces energy and you may be closer to a
real Newtonian energy.
OG
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
I think the OP wants you to explain how you non-relativistic lot think the
LHC will be able to get 7TeV (1.1E-6 J) per collision from the Newtonian
1/2mv^2 formula.
Spaceman
By using the formula everywhere is applies of course.
One place it does not apply is all the energy being used
to keep the particle "on path".
Not one bit of the energy used to keep the particle "on path"
will be converted to "forward" motion or the kinetic linear energy.
As I said.
Please show how you get any "force" at all without using Newton
forces to show you have such force at all.
:)
OG
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
So what speed are these protons travelling at then?
Spaceman
You would have to tell me, I don't know what clock you are going
to use in your "rubber ruler" world.
What time are you using, the time the photon experiences
or the time the accelerator experiences?
You are the one with a theory that has "multiple times" occuring
according to different frames.
What time are you using to determine it's speed?
Why do you ignore all the energy you are using to keep the circular
path?
Why do you also ignore spin energy when it comes to Newtons
equations?
Any answers
While your at it...
Please provide the physical frame that proves that lights speed is
not relative just like my speed would be.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
:)
OG
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
How about in your world?
Spaceman
My world is not under suspect here.
It is your "rubber ruler world" that is.
As I asked you, what time are you using to detetmine the speed.
proton time or accelerator time?
You are the one with two clocks going on, which one do you use?
OG
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
You can use whatever time you want.
I don't know what the OP is looking for, but I had hoped that you should be
able to tell us what speed you think the protons would have to be travelling
at to collide with an energy of 7TeV.
If you can't, that's fine. Maybe there are some other relativity deniers who
can. After all, it should be pretty simple for you lot.
frank...@yahoo.com
How to explain the relativistic mass increase in newtonian terms.
I would say that the relativity formula for the calulation of mass is
not incorrect. I am assuming that if you calculate the kinetic energy
of rest mass proton accelerated to the speed of light, you do not get
anywhere near the 7TeV. I would also say that the need to include
relativistic mass corrections in real physics experiments is
convincing.
However, I would say that the relativistic explanation is completely
lacking - as near as I can tell, there is no reason given for why a
particle increases in mass as it is accelerated - it is complete
magic. So the real question becomes, how does the mass increase - and
can this increase be explained in newtonian terms? If it could, then
you could explain 7TeV collisions in purely newtonian terms.
I will attempt to explain the mass increase in purely mechanical
newtonian terms.
You first have to explain what mass is. This comes from F = ma or m =
F/a or in other words, mass is nothing more than a particles ability
to resist being accelerated. Given a fixed amount of force, particles
with more mass will be acclerated less. It has nothing to do with "how
big it is" or "how much charge" or any other physically observable
quantity - just its resistance to acceleration.
So where does this "resistance" come from?
According to my own models of space which can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
The resistance comes from the breaking of aether particle bonds. The
energy required depends on:
1. How attracted the particle is to the aether. A particle which is
more attracted to the positron/electron aether particle will be more
resistant to movement and thus more "massive".
2. How physically large the particle is, which determines how much the
aether particles have to be separated in order to allow the particle
to pass.
3. How much force is required to push aether particles out of the way.
In order for an particle to pass between 2 aether particles, it has to
push them apart in opposite directions. The harder it is to move the
aether particles, the particle will become more "massive".
An analogy to this would be measuring the force required to pull an
object through a tub of molasses. If I try to pull a soup spoon
through, it puts up a great deal of resistance since it has to push
all those molasses molecules out of the way. On the other hand, a coat
hanger wire is pulled through much easier and puts up less resistance
and could be measured to have less "mass". A proton which is 1000
times as massive as an electron is like the soup spoon and the
electron is like the coat hanger.
This concept is similar to that used to explain the Higgs field, but
superior in that it doesn't require a new 'Higgs' particle. It only
requires a positron/electron sea which I think we could easily find if
we only looked for it. Futhermore, since this model uses nothing more
than the properties of electrons/positrons and the electrostatic
force, it should be possible in principle derive the masses of other
particles like protons, neutrons, etc. from first principles.
A key concept here is that mass is not a physical property of an
object. Mass is determined by how the object reacts to being pushed
through a medium. So if we replace the molasses with water in our
previous analogy, we would measure the soup spoon as having less
"mass". Note that nothing about the spoon has changed, only the medium
- this is a critical concept for understanding mass increase without
magic.
So now that we have established what "mass" is, what causes it to
increase with increasing velocity?
Resistance for a given particle has to do with how many aether bonds
get broken per unit time and how difficult it is to break the bond. As
a particle gains velocity, it will have to break more bonds per unit
time. For example, if an electron is moving at 100 mph and breaks 100
aether bonds/second, then if it is going 200 mph, it will need to
break 200 aether bonds/second.
This does not mean that the electron should become twice as massive at
200 mph, since measuring mass requires acceleration. It does however,
double the kinetic energy which is proportional to the number of
aether bonds broken per unit time and this is actually where the
kinetic energy of an object is stored.
To figure the mass increase, we have to consider what is the
difference in accelerating an electron from 100 to 110 mph compared
with from 200 to 210 mph.
To go from 100 to 110, it goes from breaking 100 bonds/sec to 110
bonds/sec. This is a difference of 10 bonds/sec.
To go from 200 to 210, it goes from breaking 200 bonds/sec to 210 bond/
sec. Not much difference here, still a difference of 10 bonds/sec.
So there is really no difference in expected mass if we look at just
the difference in bonds/sec difference. So lets look at the other
possibility that the bond strength between aether particles is
dependent on velocity.
In order for a particle to pass through the aether, it must push aside
2 aether particles (represented by M).
M
|
-----> particle |
|
M
These particles are accelerated to the 1/2 the velocity as the
particle as it passes by.
As a particle speeds up, the energy required to break the aether bond
increases due to the need to accelerate the aether particles to higher
speeds and kinetic energy. The energy rises to a maximum speed c at
which point the aether particles cannot move apart faster. This is
utlimately why a particle cannot move faster than the speed of light
due to the fact that the medium cannot move out of the way fast
enough. So we have a qualitative explanation for the increase in mass
due to an increase in energy required to separate aether particles.
Let's try to come up with a quantitative explanation.
Mass is represented by the energy required to break the aether bond
which is proportional to v^2, it is not a property of the particle.
Intuitively, we can think that the relative Mass is proportional to
v^2 upto the maximum value of v = c. To start, we can just try
multiplying by v^2.
Mrel = M0 v^2 (Mrel is the relative mass due to velocity)
However this does not represent the system we want since the Mrel does
not max out at v = c.
To represent this system, we want a formula where if v = 0, then
energy (or mass change due to velocity) is zero. The value reaches a
maximum when v = c^2. This can be represented by v^2/c^2.
Mrel = M0 v^2/c^2
However since when v = 0 we do not want the term to goto 0, we need
the term to goto 1 so it doesn't affect the multiplication. This can
be represented by 1 - v^2/c^2. So if v = 0, the term is equal to 1.
Mrel = M0 (1-v^2/c^2)
However doing this has the effect of reversing the effect of maxing
out the value at v = c. In order to restore this property, we must
invert the formula.
Mrel = Mo/(1-v^2/c^2)
For reasons I am unable to explain, we need to take the square root of
the bottom term which produces the same relativity adjusted mass
forumula:
Mrel = M0/(1-v^2/c^2)^-2
The formula is explained in the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
I am missing the last step to get the relativity mass formula
(although it may stil be possible), but you can see that the general
idea is that the resistance of a particle to pass through the aether
increases in proportion to v^2 because of the need to accelerate the
aether particles to a speed in proportion to v^2. The resistance is a
direct measure of the mass of a particle as it travels through the
aether and what is happening is that the aether is getting harder to
penatrate due to the increasing energy requirement. So a particle
traveling slowly through space is like a soup spoon travelling through
air. At very high speeds, it is like a spoon travelling through
cement. At the speed of light, it is like a spoon travelling through
hardened cement.
Nothing I have tried to explain here goes beyond newtonian mechanics,
so we have a possible explaination for the relativity mass formula in
terms of an aether and newtonian mechanics which ultimately means that
the 7Tev energies that will be generated in the LHC can be explained
exclusively in terms of newtonian mechanics.
Now of course, all you parrots will immediately disregard everything I
have tried to explain here since we all know that the "aether" doesn't
exist and therefore any theory which requires such a thing is to be
ignored.
Just let me assure you, to do this is exactly the same thing as saying
that any theory that does not place the Earth at the center of the
universe must be wrong because we "know" that the Earth is the center
of the universe. No one can prove that the aether doesn't exist.
Rather than letting your bias overrule your thought process to the
point where you shut things out without considering them, try to see
that I am showing you something unique and interesting that you may
never had heard before.
Mark my words: The denial of the aether will be the biggest mistake in
modern physics.
fhuemc2
Dirk Van de moortel
276df832-4548-4662...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com
> On Aug 21, 6:50 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Oh, sure, there are forces and forces are described by Newton, all
>> right. That doesn't mean that whenever there are forces involved, then
>> it's all Newtonian physics.
>>
>> The thing is, see, Newtonian physics also tells you how to do
>> *calculations* with the forces and with the momenta and with the
>> energies. And it tells you how much energy is possible if you collide
>> two particles with a certain velocity. There is *no way* in Newtonian
>> physics to add anything missing (no extra forces, no things unseen)
>> that will change the answer for how much energy you can *possibly* get
>> from two particles colliding with a certain velocity. And the answer
>> is wrong. Newtonian physics tells you there is NO WAY (missing forces
>> or not) that you can get 7TeV from two particles colliding at that
>> velocity.
>>
>> Your impression that Newtonian physics can accommodate anything if you
>> just add in some unseen forces is simply wrong.
>>
>> PD
>>
>>
>
> How to explain the relativistic mass increase in newtonian terms.
[snip good grief]
> Mark my words: The denial of the aether will be the biggest mistake in
> modern physics.
This is where you can embark on a 10 year mission, PD ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Ian Parker
positrons + electrons. Presumably in different states.
Could I begin with a little potted Elementary Particle Physics. A
particle has a Feynmann diagram which represents the sum total of its
ionteractions. What we are looking at then is FORCE. It does not
matter too much what a quark actually is, what it important, and what
gives it mass is the way in which it interacts. Its Feynmann diagram
in other words.
I am no nearer to understanding what Force is than I was when I
clicked onto the reference. That is what a TOE has to explain. We have
an ether which consists of dipoles. As I have said ad nauseam the
Aether also has weak and strong nuclear dipoles. I don't see this
anywhere.
In fact what I see emerging from all this is an Aether that has
Relativity built into it!
- Ian Parker
PD
Newtonian physics doesn't include relativistic mass increase. Period.
>
> I would say that the relativity formula for the calulation of mass is
> not incorrect. I am assuming that if you calculate the kinetic energy
> of rest mass proton accelerated to the speed of light, you do not get
> anywhere near the 7TeV.
That is NOT right. You do not get 7TeV if you use (1/2)mv^2, but that
is an incorrect formula for the kinetic energy. Period.
> I would also say that the need to include
> relativistic mass corrections in real physics experiments is
> convincing.
>
> However, I would say that the relativistic explanation is completely
> lacking - as near as I can tell, there is no reason given for why a
> particle increases in mass as it is accelerated - it is complete
> magic.
Relativity does not say mass increases with velocity. Mass is a
relativistic constant. What you are referring to is "relativistic
mass", which is a term coined to attempt to bridge the analogy to
Newtonian physics, but does not refer to anything fundamentally
physical. You may need to catch up on your reading.
> So the real question becomes, how does the mass increase - and
> can this increase be explained in newtonian terms? If it could, then
> you could explain 7TeV collisions in purely newtonian terms.
>
> I will attempt to explain the mass increase in purely mechanical
> newtonian terms.
>
> You first have to explain what mass is. This comes from F = ma or m =
> F/a or in other words, mass is nothing more than a particles ability
> to resist being accelerated.
And this expression too is wrong, and it isn't even what Newton said!
Newton put forward a formula that is still correct:
F = dp/dt. Again, you are relying on web references and books that are
feeding you a bunch of formulas that are good low-speed approximations
but are not fundamentally correct. You may need to do some more
concentrated reading.
> Given a fixed amount of force, particles
> with more mass will be acclerated less. It has nothing to do with "how
> big it is" or "how much charge" or any other physically observable
> quantity - just its resistance to acceleration.
>
> So where does this "resistance" come from?
>
> According to my own models of space which can be found at:http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
>
> The resistance comes from the breaking of aether particle bonds. The
> energy required depends on:
>
> 1. How attracted the particle is to the aether. A particle which is
> more attracted to the positron/electron aether particle will be more
> resistant to movement and thus more "massive".
>
> 2. How physically large the particle is, which determines how much the
> aether particles have to be separated in order to allow the particle
> to pass.
>
> 3. How much force is required to push aether particles out of the way.
> In order for an particle to pass between 2 aether particles, it has to
> push them apart in opposite directions. The harder it is to move the
> aether particles, the particle will become more "massive".
Can you do calculations with this theory? Can you explain, by
*calculations*, why two objects with different shapes and volumes can
be *predicted* to have the same mass? Can you clearly indicated the
conditions, via a formula, where those masses will be the same and
when they will be different? If you can, then you have a predictive
theory. If not, then you have a theory which will admit just about
anything and predicts nothing.
>
> An analogy to this would be measuring the force required to pull an
> object through a tub of molasses. If I try to pull a soup spoon
> through, it puts up a great deal of resistance since it has to push
> all those molasses molecules out of the way. On the other hand, a coat
> hanger wire is pulled through much easier and puts up less resistance
> and could be measured to have less "mass". A proton which is 1000
> times as massive as an electron is like the soup spoon and the
> electron is like the coat hanger.
>
> This concept is similar to that used to explain the Higgs field, but
> superior in that it doesn't require a new 'Higgs' particle. It only
> requires a positron/electron sea which I think we could easily find if
> we only looked for it.
Good. What are the signals by which it would be recognized. Please
keep in mind present experimental data and whether it should have
shown up there already.
> Futhermore, since this model uses nothing more
> than the properties of electrons/positrons and the electrostatic
> force, it should be possible in principle derive the masses of other
> particles like protons, neutrons, etc. from first principles.
>
> A key concept here is that mass is not a physical property of an
> object. Mass is determined by how the object reacts to being pushed
> through a medium. So if we replace the molasses with water in our
> previous analogy, we would measure the soup spoon as having less
> "mass". Note that nothing about the spoon has changed, only the medium
> - this is a critical concept for understanding mass increase without
> magic.
>
> So now that we have established what "mass" is, what causes it to
> increase with increasing velocity?
>
> Resistance for a given particle has to do with how many aether bonds
> get broken per unit time and how difficult it is to break the bond. As
> a particle gains velocity, it will have to break more bonds per unit
> time. For example, if an electron is moving at 100 mph and breaks 100
> aether bonds/second, then if it is going 200 mph, it will need to
> break 200 aether bonds/second.
>
> This does not mean that the electron should become twice as massive at
> 200 mph, since measuring mass requires acceleration. It does however,
> double the kinetic energy which is proportional to the number of
> aether bonds broken per unit time and this is actually where the
> kinetic energy of an object is stored.
And this is wrong. Double the speed and kinetic energy quadruples at
low speed. At high speed, though, increasing the velocity by 1% can
quintuple the kinetic energy. Experimentally. Back to the drawing
board.
Well, we'll see. Still awaiting calculations that agree with
experiment and make additional predictions of measurable quantities
yet to be measured.
>
> fhuemc2
frank...@yahoo.com
Absolutely, you can do calculations with the theory - it could be the
nail in the coffin or the thing that proves it beyond a doubt. This is
the best feature of my theory in that I do not rely on things we don't
know exist - like the fairy princess particle & force. My theory has
nothing except the positron and electron and the electrostatic force.
We know the exact mathematical characteristics of these items and so
it is just a matter of drawing pictures, measuring forces with
relatively simple Columb's law calclulations between particles and
using newtonian mechanics to calculate energies. I have attempted to
do an incomplete calculation in my post, but I think you get the idea
that with so few moving parts, that absolutely everything should be
calculatable. Of course, that doesn't mean it is easy. You still have
to make a number of assumptions about the minimum distances that a
positron/electron pair are going to take and how much distance there
is between aether particles and the like and then try to make the
distances match what is seen in the real world. You also have to deal
with multiple body problems. To figure the mass of a proton, you'd
have to make some assumptions about the orientation of the 2 positrons/
1 electron in the proton and then calculate what it would do in a
dipole aether field. Then you could possibly make the same calculation
with an electron to see if the mass ratios work out.
>
>
> > An analogy to this would be measuring the force required to pull an
> > object through a tub of molasses. If I try to pull a soup spoon
> > through, it puts up a great deal of resistance since it has to push
> > all those molasses molecules out of the way. On the other hand, a coat
> > hanger wire is pulled through much easier and puts up less resistance
> > and could be measured to have less "mass". A proton which is 1000
> > times as massive as an electron is like the soup spoon and the
> > electron is like the coat hanger.
>
> > This concept is similar to that used to explain the Higgs field, but
> > superior in that it doesn't require a new 'Higgs' particle. It only
> > requires a positron/electron sea which I think we could easily find if
> > we only looked for it.
>
> Good. What are the signals by which it would be recognized. Please
> keep in mind present experimental data and whether it should have
> shown up there already.
>
What you would be looking for is an extremely dense particle field
appearing at the mass energy of a positron/electron pair around 1.022
MeV
Assuming you designed an experiment that is only supposed to expel
particles with a particular mass, if you tuned in around 1.022 MeV,
you should see a huge spike.
I think the reason why we pay it no attention is because this is
probably the most common result of any accelerator experiment
(positron/electron production/anniliation) and all of these particles
are tossed out as 'noise'. So instead of the Higgs particle being this
extremely rare particle event, it becomes the most common particle
event - an event so common, it is completely ignored! It makes sense
that if a particle fills all of space, that it would be the most
common particle encounted in experiments, not the rarest.
Yeah, my bad. Although my argument below about how the speed increases
the energy required to split the aether particles may get the
quadruple energy. Although, this whole idea of trying to count the
bonds broken didn't get me where I wanted to go anyways. It is more
significant to characterize why the aether becomes harder to penatrate
at speed rather than count absolute number of bonds broken. But hey, I
came up with this idea yesterday and wrote it up in 2 hours. Maybe you
can cut me a little slack? At least I'm trying to calculate stuff and
relate it to experimentally verified reality.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
frank...@yahoo.com
> I had a glance at you website. So quarks do not exist, everything is
> positrons + electrons. Presumably in different states.
>
> Could I begin with a little potted Elementary Particle Physics. A
> particle has a Feynmann diagram which represents the sum total of its
> ionteractions. What we are looking at then is FORCE. It does not
> matter too much what a quark actually is, what it important, and what
> gives it mass is the way in which it interacts. Its Feynmann diagram
> in other words.
>
> I am no nearer to understanding what Force is than I was when I
> clicked onto the reference.
If you want to know the ways of the Force in particular, the
electrostatic force, see:
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/electrostatic.html
> That is what a TOE has to explain.
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
Does explain that and more.
> We have
> an ether which consists of dipoles. As I have said ad nauseam the
> Aether also has weak and strong nuclear dipoles. I don't see this
> anywhere.
>
I am not familiar with your need for weak and strong dipoles. My TOE
completely gets rid of the need for the strong force by completely
redoing the structure of the atom to not require it and the weak force
by making beta decay the result of an incoming neutrino collision.
This has the advantage of greatly simplifying the number of forces to
exactly 1 - the electrostatic force. The strong force has got to be
the most unlikely of forces and the weak force really isn't even a
force.
> In fact what I see emerging from all this is an Aether that has
> Relativity built into it!
Well, actually, that was what I was generally trying to prove. If the
aether is to be accepted, it has to be able to exactly reproduce the
experimental results of relativity experiments and it is better than
relativity because it provides a greater insight into the actual
mechanism rather than being just a page of mathematics - it provides
the physical model which has been missing in mainstream physics in
over a 100 years. Relativity absolutely has to be explained in
newtonian terms mediated by an aether.
If someone manages to do this in a convincing way, they would surely
win the Nobel prize. Any takers????
>
> - Ian Parker
Ian Parker
>
> > We have
> > an ether which consists of dipoles. As I have said ad nauseam the
> > Aether also has weak and strong nuclear dipoles. I don't see this
> > anywhere.
>
> I am not familiar with your need for weak and strong dipoles. My TOE
> completely gets rid of the need for the strong force by completely
> redoing the structure of the atom to not require it and the weak force
> by making beta decay the result of an incoming neutrino collision.
> This has the advantage of greatly simplifying the number of forces to
> exactly 1 - the electrostatic force. The strong force has got to be
> the most unlikely of forces and the weak force really isn't even a
> force.
There are 4 forces we know of today :- Electromagnetism, Gravitation
and the weak and stong nuclear forces. The weak force does not have
mirror symmetry. Our Aether has some amazing properties. Ledt/Right
with 3 forces and no left/right symmetry with the weak nuclear.
This is everything. Do you have a theory.
- Ian Parker
PD
> On Aug 25, 5:26 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you do calculations with this theory? Can you explain, by
> > *calculations*, why two objects with different shapes and volumes can
> > be *predicted* to have the same mass? Can you clearly indicated the
> > conditions, via a formula, where those masses will be the same and
> > when they will be different? If you can, then you have a predictive
> > theory. If not, then you have a theory which will admit just about
> > anything and predicts nothing.
>
> Absolutely, you can do calculations with the theory - it could be the
> nail in the coffin or the thing that proves it beyond a doubt.
Then please provide the calculations. The proof of the pudding is in
the eating, so to speak.
> This is
> the best feature of my theory in that I do not rely on things we don't
> know exist - like the fairy princess particle & force. My theory has
> nothing except the positron and electron and the electrostatic force.
> We know the exact mathematical characteristics of these items and so
> it is just a matter of drawing pictures, measuring forces with
> relatively simple Columb's law calclulations between particles and
> using newtonian mechanics to calculate energies. I have attempted to
> do an incomplete calculation in my post, but I think you get the idea
Actually, no, I don't. A much more detailed calculation is required.
What does this mean? What is the experimental signature of an
extremely dense particle field?
> appearing at the mass energy of a positron/electron pair around 1.022
> MeV
>
> Assuming you designed an experiment that is only supposed to expel
> particles with a particular mass, if you tuned in around 1.022 MeV,
> you should see a huge spike.
Umm.... what does that mean? What do you mean "design an experiment
that is supposed to expel particles with a particular mass"?
>
> I think the reason why we pay it no attention is because this is
> probably the most common result of any accelerator experiment
> (positron/electron production/anniliation) and all of these particles
> are tossed out as 'noise'.
Well, no, not normally.
But in any event, what you have described is a *postdiction* -- a
description of an already seen event. What I asked for was a
*prediction* of an event not yet seen. Do you understand the
difference?
Actually, what I recommend you do is to come up with an idea, take
however long you need to *complete* the calculations and *then* share
them. This is what theoretical physicists do -- there are often months
or years between when the idea strikes and when the calculations are
anywhere near being presentable. Does this surprise you?
Corr Edwards
> How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision energies
> of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic protons?
>
> answer.
>
> Corr
>
Very disappointing. Nobody even tried. :-(
Androcles
"Corr Edwards" <co...@glmaill.com> wrote in message
news:6hm4bmF...@mid.individual.net...
Lying shit.
Corr Edwards
You may well be sir, but can you tell me who tried to answer the
question I asked?
Spaceman
I did more than tried,
I told you where you were wrong.
They are perfectally Newtonian energies.
Nothing "relativistic" about them at all that requires
the relativity theory to explain them.
You just ignore where all the energy is going for
keeping the colliding particles on the circular track.
apparently you do not know how to do Newtonian collision
problems , neo or not.
Corr Edwards
No sir, you did not try. If you really wish to take up the challenge I
suggest you use calculations to show that Newtonian physics can achieve
that level of energy.
Spaceman
LOL
I suggest you think about why it's can't.
It does so just fine.
And of course.. you would need to remember not to
use the "energy put in" because that is more than the energy
that is coming out because of the simple fact that a lot is used
to keep the particle on track.
You sir, are only proving you don't even know what the
Newtonian facts are about the whole situation.
Androcles
I did.
Proof:
________________________________________________________
"Winston Smith" <wintst...@ministryoflove.gov> wrote in message
news:g8iqf3$5b4$1...@aioe.org...
>
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> news:CR4rk.43958$Ft5....@newsfe29.ams2...
>>
>> "Corr Edwards" <co...@glmaill.com> wrote in message
>> news:6h3qsqF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision energies
>>> of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic protons?
>>
>> How did you relativistic fuckheads get collision energies of (1.1 E-6
>> Joules) when
>> you haven't even switched it on yet? Clairvoyance, was it?
>>
>>
>>> I'll give you lot until after the weekend to come up with a coherent
>>> answer.
>>
>> You can fuck off, we don't need prophets.
>>
> X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com
<yawn>
Wintston Winston can't spell his own name.
__________________________________________________________
I can now reiterate: you are a lying shit, albeit a disappointed one.
frank...@yahoo.com
Hey, I tried too, I even included some calculations, although those
fell short quantitatively, but I think the qualitative explanation
that relativity mass can be explained in newtonian terms by being
mediated by an aether.
Don't you even read the posts people put up???? We really do try, you
know. This was a very interesting question that I spent several hours
on. I hope you go back and at least have a look.
Androcles
<frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa04b22c-f838-4390...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
===================================
You've fallen victim to a bigotted nymshifting troll <shrug>.
Corr Edwards
Sir, I don't know who you think I am, but you have not attempted to
answer the question, nor have you given me the name of someone who has
made a serious attempt to respond.
Corr Edwards
Sir, feel free to enlighten me regarding the 'Newtonian facts about the
whole situation'. Up to and including the calculation that shows a
collision energy of 7Tev (1.1 E-6J) per collision.
I think it is a reasonable requirement that you can complete the
calculation as proof that /you/ understand the theory.
Androcles
I'll give you until tomorrow to come up with a coherent answer, fuckhead.
Corr Edwards
I did read your post Sir - but I would respond that it is not a
Newtonian theory.
Nor does it answer my question quantitively.
Corr Edwards
Sir, I can see you are in some distress. I'll not bother you any further
until you are in a better state of mind.
Androcles
Very disappointing. Never even tried.
Cur, I don't know who you think I am, but you have not attempted to
answer the question because it has you fucked.
*plonk*
Corr Edwards
>
>>>>
>>>> Sir, I don't know who you think I am, but you have not attempted to
>>>> answer the question, nor have you given me the name of someone who
>>>> has made a serious attempt to respond.
>>>>
>>> Answer this very serious question: Do you still beat your mother?
>>>
>>> I'll give you until tomorrow to come up with a coherent answer,
>>> fuckhead.
>>>
>>
>> Sir, I can see you are in some distress. I'll not bother you any
>> further until you are in a better state of mind.
>
>
>
> Very disappointing. Never even tried.
>
> Cur, I don't know who you think I am, but you have not attempted to
> answer the question because it has you fucked.
>
Sir, take your baby games and come back when you have something to add.
Spaceman
Ok, I will get pull out my copy accelerator and get some real readings
on my own.
Are you really that ignorant?
Sheesh
If you have the facts, I gave you the methods.
IF you want more, post every single measurement and the methods
used to get such measurements.
(I have not seen one place that has all the facts truly needed to do such)
rbwinn
> How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision energies
> of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic protons?
>
> I'll give you lot until after the weekend to come up with a coherent
> answer.
>
> Corr
The whole thing has to do with measurement of time. If a particle is
accellerated to half the speed of light, then from the frame of
reference of the particle, the accellerator is moving past the
particle at the speed of light. Imagine what the accellerator is
doing from the frame of reference of the particle if the particle is
moving at something like .98c from the frame of reference of the
accelerator.
We see the same principle demonstrated with a sattelite.
Scientists all agree that a clock in the sattelite runs slower than an
identical clock on earth. So what is the velocity of the sattelite as
computed by an astronaut in the sattelite?
The altitude of the sattelite is the same measured from Either
frame of reference. The circumfrence of the orbit is the same from
either frame of reference. The clock in the sattelite is slower from
either frame of reference. The astronaut has to see a faster velocity
than a scientist on the earth.
The same thing is true of your particle.
Robert B. Winn
Raghar
> How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision energies
> of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic protons?
>
> I'll give you lot until after the weekend to come up with a coherent
> answer.
>
You pump enough energy into the particle. It's that simple.
Corr Edwards
So how fast does the proton go around the LHC?
Corr Edwards
Can you calculate the speed the protons would need to give the quoted
collision energy?
Raghar
I hope you don't like to measure speed of a proton by eV. When you
pump the energy into it, it must go somewhere. It increases proton's
moment of inertia. EM used for acceleration envelops the proton.
Basically it looks like a blob.
Then it crashes and the energy goes off with boom.
Basically speed of travel of the proton is kinda irrelevant, because
its effective mass changes.
Corr Edwards
> On Aug 28, 8:26 pm, Corr Edwards <co...@glmaill.com> wrote:
>
>>Raghar wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 21, 2:23 am, Corr Edwards <co...@glmaill.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision energies
>>>>of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic protons?
>>
>>>>I'll give you lot until after the weekend to come up with a coherent
>>>>answer.
>>
>>>You pump enough energy into the particle. It's that simple.
>>
>>So how fast does the proton go around the LHC?
>
>
> On Aug 28, 8:26 pm, Corr Edwards <co...@glmaill.com> wrote:
>
>>Raghar wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 21, 2:23 am, Corr Edwards <co...@glmaill.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>How do you neo-Newtonians think that the LHC can get collision energies
>>>>of 7 TeV (1.1 E-6 Joules) by colliding non-relativistic protons?
>>
>>>>I'll give you lot until after the weekend to come up with a coherent
>>>>answer.
>>
>>>You pump enough energy into the particle. It's that simple.
>>
>>So how fast does the proton go around the LHC?
>
>
> I hope you don't like to measure speed of a proton by eV.
m/s will do.
In your own time
Spaceman
What do you calculate the speed needed to make that much energy?
Do you account for particle spin also like most "never" do so they
come to the conclusion the speed was not enough and then they never
check for such things like vibration or spin?