Beat your professor
kuan Peng
Most people who attend this group are students. Here is a opportunity to
beat your professor, but not with your fist although some may wish to
because the problem they gave you made you have headache. Rather, beat them
the regular way, by giving them a problem they can solve.
In fact, every science has its own limit. For example, the limit of Newton's
mechanics is speed. For high speed, classical mechanics is no longer
valuable. Until now, electromagnetism has not known limit. Now we have one.
It is in this web page: http://yourcenar.chez.tiscali.fr/.
This text shows a irreconcilable contradiction that the 3rd Maxwell equation
encounters. This text is on the web for very short time. This is why, your
professor would even not be aware of it. Just ask them to solve this
contradiction.
If your professor come back by saying: "I cannot solve it", he is a good
professor. Because he have paid attention to your question and he have
understand it. If he says: "you must not make the same error", he would not
be very good. Because he has surely not well read it.
--
Up to date text is here http://yourcenar.chez.tiscali.fr/
Kuan PENG
James Hunter
kuan Peng wrote:
> Beat your professor
>
> Most people who attend this group are students. Here is a opportunity to
> beat your professor, but not with your fist although some may wish to
> because the problem they gave you made you have headache. Rather, beat them
> the regular way, by giving them a problem they can solve.
>
> In fact, every science has its own limit. For example, the limit of Newton's
> mechanics is speed. For high speed, classical mechanics is no longer
> valuable. Until now, electromagnetism has not known limit. Now we have one.
> It is in this web page: http://yourcenar.chez.tiscali.fr/.
How can it have a limit if the universe is expanding?
And it's expanding faster?
Einstone was a only passing spirit, since he was
probabilistically challenged, not even knowing
what stochastic even means.
Which is why "scientists" are challenged into
believing that fusion actually exists.
tadchem
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
news:3CE06FBD...@Jhuapl.edu...
<snip>
> Which is why "scientists" are challenged into
> believing that fusion actually exists.
I have to admit the Enewetok blast was pretty persuasive.
http://education.yahoo.com/search/be?lb=t&p=url%3Ah/hydrogen_bomb
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
James Hunter
tadchem wrote:
> "James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CE06FBD...@Jhuapl.edu...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Which is why "scientists" are challenged into
> > believing that fusion actually exists.
>
> I have to admit the Enewetok blast was pretty persuasive.
Because you call big fusion bombs, fission bombs,
that's not very persuasive, except of course
in "science's", policy of truth.
Matthew Morgan
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
>
> Because you call big fusion bombs, fission bombs,
> that's not very persuasive, except of course
> in "science's", policy of truth.
>
>
Putting quotation marks around words isn't a very persuasive argument
either.
Matthew M
tadchem
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> tadchem wrote:
> > "James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3CE06FBD...@Jhuapl.edu...
> > > Which is why "scientists" are challenged into
> > > believing that fusion actually exists.
> > I have to admit the Enewetok blast was pretty persuasive.
> Because you call big fusion bombs, fission bombs,
> that's not very persuasive, except of course
> in "science's", policy of truth.
You appear confused. The A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a fission blast -
no hydrogen used. It was TINY compared to Enewetok, which was a
fission/fusion device; it needed a small fission device to START the
hydrogen fusion. It was *designed* to work with the process of nuclear
fusion and did exactly what was expected.
Do a little reading.
http://infomanage.com/nonproliferation/primer/nwfaq/Nfaq1.html
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
tadchem
As a youth I had a friend who had a sign up in his room saying:
"I know what I know. Don't confuse me with the facts."
Of course, he was smart enoough to see the humor in it.
Some are not, and actually *live* by thse words.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Spaceman
"kuan Peng" <kp.ph...@LIBERTYSURF.FR> wrote in message
news:abpp9h$2i83$1...@news5.isdnet.net...
> In fact, every science has its own limit. For example, the limit of
Newton's
> mechanics is speed.
Not!
Speed has no such limit.
186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps.
go ahead,
show proof I'm wrong in the above and you will have proven
basic math wrong.
You can't do it..
:)
Speed has no limit.
objects have limits.
speed is not an object.
It is an abstract,
"abstracts themselves" have no limit.
they don't exist as limitable things,
so of course,
they have no limit.
Spaceman
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
news:3CE06FBD...@Jhuapl.edu...
>
> believing that fusion actually exists.
fusion?
Isn't that what they say the sun does?
Too bad the sun is merely a big hydrogen burning diesel engine.
It's motion collects it's fuel (hydrogen and spacejunk)
and the sun's gravitational compression allows
the constant burning and explosions without a spark system<G>
The sun is a hyrogen fired diesel engine.
<G>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:ue22g72...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "kuan Peng" <kp.ph...@LIBERTYSURF.FR> wrote in message
> news:abpp9h$2i83$1...@news5.isdnet.net...
> > In fact, every science has its own limit. For example, the limit of
> Newton's
> > mechanics is speed.
>
> Not!
> Speed has no such limit.
> 186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps.
Absolutely right. Sometimes you surprise me.
>
> go ahead,
> show proof I'm wrong in the above and you will have proven
> basic math wrong.
> You can't do it..
> :)
Absolutely right again.
>
> Speed has no limit.
> objects have limits.
Absolutely right once more.
> speed is not an object.
> It is an abstract,
No problem.
> "abstracts themselves" have no limit.
> they don't exist as limitable things,
> so of course,
> they have no limit.
I don't agree here: the series of numbers 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, ...
has a limit of 0, but it is abstract, don't you think?
Dirk Vdm
Roy McCammon
> This text shows a irreconcilable contradiction that the
> 3rd Maxwell equation encounters.
When I was 13, I thought ohm's law was wrong,
but I got over it.
--
Thank you for reading and or replying
If you are one in a million, there are 6000 people just like
you.
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Donald G. Shead
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:698E8.9$1r2.3...@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...
Cut<
>
> I don't agree here: the series of numbers 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, ...
> has a limit of 0, but it is abstract, don't you think?
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
changes, don't you think?
muhaha
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:698E8.9$1r2.3...@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"muhaha" <vend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:abr5sn$7dm1$1...@as201.hinet.hr...
I don't understand your question. Can you somehow clarify
what you mean?
[ And please reply at the bottom of or inside the message? - thanks ]
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
> > I don't agree here: the series of numbers 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, ...
> > has a limit of 0, but it is abstract, don't you think?
anyway
no,
still no limit,
keep going in your series
1/6
skip a few
1/10
skip a bunch
1/100
skip a ton
1/10000000000000000000
etc ..
no limit to smallest fraction.
that series never reaches 0 at all
see?
"numbers and abstracts and thoughts" have no limits.
I know for I can fart a universe with a thought.
:)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Donald G. Shead" <u10...@snet.net> wrote in message news:4Y8E8.16975$MU.112...@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
When you try to imagine all the numbers of the series
that I gave, or when you calculate them, you will see
that the number gets closer and closer to zero without
ever changing sign, don't you think?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:ue285kl...@corp.supernews.com...
> (not sure who posted this )
> > > I don't agree here: the series of numbers 1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, ...
> > > has a limit of 0, but it is abstract, don't you think?
>
> anyway
> no,
> still no limit,
> keep going in your series
> 1/6
> skip a few
> 1/10
> skip a bunch
> 1/100
> skip a ton
> 1/10000000000000000000
>
> etc ..
> no limit to smallest fraction.
> that series never reaches 0 at all
> see?
Quite right indeed, it will never reach 0 at all.
But it gets as close to 0 as you like: pick any small number,
however small you like, however close to 0 as you want...
then you can always find a number in the series that is *still*
closer to 0 than the one you picked.
That is what we call a limit. It's just a name we use for this
kind of phenomenon.
Dirk Vdm
kuan Peng
Light is the limit of Newton's mechanics. It is not the border of Univers.
Spaceman
bad math is doing that.
good math shows no speed limit for objects.
light is limited,
objects that are not light itself, are not.
186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps.
Newtons mechanics work fine up to and even past lightspeed.
"kuan Peng" <kp.ph...@LIBERTYSURF.FR> wrote in message
news:abr8qi$kog$1...@news2.isdnet.net...
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>Newtons mechanics are not limited by light.
>
>bad math is doing that.
>good math shows no speed limit for objects.
>light is limited,
>objects that are not light itself, are not.
>
>186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps.
>Newtons mechanics work fine up to and even past lightspeed.
If object A is coming from the right at 100,000 mps and object B is coming
from the left at 100,000 mps, then we can calculate the time of impact as
t=x/(2*v). You may, in a sense, say that the closing speed is 200,000
mps. But that's a somewhat abstract speed because it's not a speed of A
relative to B, it's a speed of A relative to you combined with a speed of
B relative to you. Still, that much is simple math.
But to determine the speed of B relative to A you need to transform to A's
reference frame. A transformation is not simple arithmetic. It's
geometry that needn't be Euclidean.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Spaceman
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:abra1m$nqj$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
tranformation is not simple arithmatic becasue it's not simply real.
relative speeds via observation are bolgona observations
and of curse limited to lightspeed for all observation itself is what is
limited
by light.
speed could care less about light or your observations of it..
your twisting of speed is sad.
speed has no such limit.
Newtons mechanics don't either.
as I stated,
bad math.
limiting things that are not the thing they speak of.
light has a limit of speed.
all other things don't care about lights speed.
the additon of speed is basic proof.
braking that addition is bad math and nothing more
than that.
observation is limited by lightspeed.
speed is not.
.
Warren Brown
is that classical newtonian mechanics can only be used for speeds << speed
of light. After that reletivity kicks in. Otherwise theoretically something
could travel faster than the speed of light.
Tris
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
> Newtons mechanics are not limited by light.
>
> bad math is doing that.
> good math shows no speed limit for objects.
> light is limited,
> objects that are not light itself, are not.
>
> 186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps.
> Newtons mechanics work fine up to and even past lightspeed.
You like Newton's mechanics but you don't like his Law of Universal
Gravitation. Hmmm.
Spaceman
is the problem.
The theory of relativity has flaws.
It has never been completely accepted as fact,
and never will be, for many facts,(although ignored by most relaitivists)
prove it wrong.
"Warren Brown" <Kin...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:abrc83$q68$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Spaceman
"Tris" <nu...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:1021392310.2034.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> You like Newton's mechanics but you don't like his Law of Universal
> Gravitation. Hmmm.
I like Newtons stuff when light does not effect things
as much as relativity allows.
just like it doesn't in the REAL world.
Light won't slow down anything too much at all
so it won't stop or slowdown any 75 ton Starship
from passing it's speed either.
I never said he got Gravity correct though.
In fact,
I see gravity as a push.
and "Le Sage", I think, is the brain of Gravity today.
..
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
>news:3CE06FBD...@Jhuapl.edu...
>The sun is a hyrogen fired diesel engine.
Where does all the water go?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Robert J. Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
> relativity "kicking in"
> is the problem.
>
> The theory of relativity has flaws.
> It has never been completely accepted as fact,
> and never will be, for many facts,(although ignored by most relaitivists)
> prove it wrong.
Name two.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CE139C7...@attbi.com...
sure.
simple.
I even came up with them myself.
1: Time is an abstract.
2: The paradox twins are the same revolutions of the Earth old
therefore they are the SAME age in Earth days old.
But,
like I said,
you will ignore these and come up with excuses galore.
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:abra1m$nqj$2...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <ue2adj6...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>> >Newtons mechanics are not limited by light.
>> >
>> >bad math is doing that.
>> >good math shows no speed limit for objects.
>> >light is limited,
>> >objects that are not light itself, are not.
>> >
>> >186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps.
>> >Newtons mechanics work fine up to and even past lightspeed.
>>
>> If object A is coming from the right at 100,000 mps and object B is coming
>> from the left at 100,000 mps, then we can calculate the time of impact as
>> t=x/(2*v). You may, in a sense, say that the closing speed is 200,000
>> mps. But that's a somewhat abstract speed because it's not a speed of A
>> relative to B, it's a speed of A relative to you combined with a speed of
>> B relative to you. Still, that much is simple math.
>>
>> But to determine the speed of B relative to A you need to transform to A's
>> reference frame. A transformation is not simple arithmetic. It's
>> geometry that needn't be Euclidean.
>
>tranformation is not simple arithmatic becasue it's not simply real.
Pick up your radar gun or your tape rulers or whatever you're using to
measure the velocities, and make them move with whatever velocity A has.
That's what a transformation means, change the state of motion of your
measuring instruments.
>
>relative speeds via observation are bolgona observations
Would that be compared to absolute speeds via observation? Or relative
speeds via daydreaming?
>and of curse limited to lightspeed for all observation itself is what is
>limited
>by light.
>
>speed could care less about light or your observations of it..
>your twisting of speed is sad.
There's nothing wrong with diagreeing with some theory. But you can't
seem to even comprehend how relativity could have gotten so popular in the
first place, you wonder why everyone practicing physics around the world
for the last hundred years can be so stupid. As the Greeks say, if the
whole world smells like shit, it's probably your own feet.
Spaceman
> Pick up your radar gun
pick up your "speed limited device" and shove it up your butt
you are lost,
and I don't care anymore if you don't want to learn
WHERE you are wrong.
speed has no limit according to math itself.
You should really take 3rd grade all over again.
186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps
your math is wrong, if it comes up with anything different
than the above.
Miles and seconds DO NOT change with speed.
only bad math allows such.
and that math has stepped out of science and into
Sci-Fi.
Keep your sci fi for physics and you can stay lost for all time.
I will keep my Reality physics where time and length
remain like they should.
1 mile = 1 mile always or the device screwed up.
1 second = 1 second always of the device screwed up.
Science knows it the devices problems.
Physics seems to want to ignore science.
It's sad.
and your part of the sadness.
Robert J. Kolker
Spaceman wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3CE139C7...@attbi.com...
>
>>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>relativity "kicking in"
>>>is the problem.
>>>
>>>The theory of relativity has flaws.
>>>It has never been completely accepted as fact,
>>>and never will be, for many facts,(although ignored by most
>>>
> relaitivists)
>
>>>prove it wrong.
>>>
>>
>>Name two.
>>
>
> sure.
> simple.
> I even came up with them myself.
>
> 1: Time is an abstract.
That is not a fact, but an opinion of yours
>
> 2: The paradox twins are the same revolutions of the Earth old
> therefore they are the SAME age in Earth days old.
>
That is a fact but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the relative
aging of the twins, and does not disprove a thing. The differential
timing of clocks, one at rest and one accelerated to a higher speed has
been proven thousands of times, and in fact is proven constanly by the
correct working of the GPS.
So neither of your "facts" disproves a thing. Try again.
Bob Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:abrgmb$oip$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
>> Pick up your radar gun
>
>pick up your "speed limited device" and shove it up your butt
>
>you are lost,
>and I don't care anymore if you don't want to learn
>WHERE you are wrong.
>
>speed has no limit according to math itself.
>
>You should really take 3rd grade all over again.
>186,000 mps + 10,000 mps = 196,000 mps
>your math is wrong, if it comes up with anything different
>than the above.
And you know this because... of measurements you've made, data you've
seen, experiments you've read? Or is this just something you "know"?
Spaceman
> > 1: Time is an abstract.
>
>
>
> That is not a fact, but an opinion of yours
No,
it's a fact that you ignore.
It's not my fault you have no clue what a fact is and like to ignore them.
Time IS an abstract.
That IS a fact too!
> > 2: The paradox twins are the same revolutions of the Earth old
> > therefore they are the SAME age in Earth days old.
> >
>
> That is a fact but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the relative
> aging of the twins
bullshit.
relative to the Earth, (see relative!) they are the same ages in Earth
spins.
Relative to the sun they are also the same ages in Sun spins.
Relative to anything that is not with them,
(being affected by changes in motion (like your stupid clocks are))
shows they are the same ages.
Good clocks show they are the same age.
"Bad clocks" do what yours do.
you can ignore the Giant Earth clock all you want.
you can ignore the even larger Sun clock all you want,
but...
It only makes you look like a fool.
and shows how brainwashed some relativists are.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
http://www.realspaceman.com
news://realspaceman.net/spacemans.space
Spaceman
>Or is this just something you "know"?
I know it,
because I was tought it in school unlike you I guess.
It's called basic addition
Did you flunk basic addition part of math class?
sure seems that way or you would know it's correct also.
Gregory L. Hansen
I caught on to the part where science involves doing experiments to test a
theory. And all experiments done are consistent with special relativity.
When you get to high speeds or energies, Newtonian mechanics doesn't
work! And no number of thought experiments will change that.
Spaceman
> I caught on to the part where science involves doing experiments to test a
> theory. And all experiments done are consistent with special relativity.
No,
all experiments that agree are agreed upon and all experments
that can prove it wrong ar ignored from the brainwashing strength.
> When you get to high speeds or energies, Newtonian mechanics doesn't
> work! And no number of thought experiments will change that.
Wrong.
when you get to high speed using elelctrons (energy)
you can get all sorts of cool effects the electron does
since it's not solid and acts like a superfuid,
not a solid.
when you accelerate a solid.
it does not care about light.
and speeds of such have no limits.
If lightspeed has something to do with speed.
how come things can move fast in the dark.
You are truly lost and brainwashed beyond help it seems.
You ignore basic math,
yet use math to prove stuff.
it's sad.
and VERY ignorant.
Tell me,
What force does light have to stop a 75 ton Starship from
passing 186,000 miles per second.
What makes light have such Godly powers to do such?
HOW DOES LIGHT CREATE THIS MAGICAL WALL OF YOURS?
It's magic right?
<LOL>
James Hunter
tadchem wrote:
> "James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> news:3CE0895A...@Jhuapl.edu...
>
> > tadchem wrote:
>
> > > "James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:3CE06FBD...@Jhuapl.edu...
>
> > > > Which is why "scientists" are challenged into
> > > > believing that fusion actually exists.
>
> > > I have to admit the Enewetok blast was pretty persuasive.
>
> > Because you call big fusion bombs, fission bombs,
> > that's not very persuasive, except of course
> > in "science's", policy of truth.
>
> You appear confused. The A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a fission blast -
> no hydrogen used. It was TINY compared to Enewetok, which was a
> fission/fusion device; it needed a small fission device to START the
> hydrogen fusion. It was *designed* to work with the process of nuclear
> fusion and did exactly what was expected.
I meant to say -frusion-. The Earth being TINY compared
to the sun, doesn't mean that fusion EXISTS weirdos.
Dan Bloomquist
Spaceman wrote:
> If lightspeed has something to do with speed.
> how come things can move fast in the dark.
>
LMAO
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:abrlj8$p2k$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
>> I caught on to the part where science involves doing experiments to test a
>> theory. And all experiments done are consistent with special relativity.
>
>No,
>all experiments that agree are agreed upon and all experments
>that can prove it wrong ar ignored from the brainwashing strength.
I'm talking about real experiments done with measuring devices that exist,
and had to be built. I'm not talking about Spaceman's thought
experiments. I'm also not talking about things like time dilation, by the
way. I'm talking about things like predictions of how far something will
go before it decays, what is the bending radius of a particle in a
magnetic field, energy spectra of hydrogen atoms, etc. I'm talking about
raw data, not what people think it means.
One of the surest ways I've found to identify a crackpot isn't that he
disagrees with extant theory or has a theory of his own. It's that he
can't even understand why some theory became popular in the first place.
He doesn't even understand why nobody agrees with him, and makes up
character flaws to explain it. Scientists around the world for the past
hundred years have accepted relativity because they're brainwashed and
deluded. It has nothing to do with how it fits into the greater body of
theory and experiment. Right?
>
>> When you get to high speeds or energies, Newtonian mechanics doesn't
>> work! And no number of thought experiments will change that.
>
>Wrong.
>when you get to high speed using elelctrons (energy)
>you can get all sorts of cool effects the electron does
>since it's not solid and acts like a superfuid,
>not a solid.
Metaphysical interpretations aside, Newtonian mechanics breaks down and
relativity correctly predicts the things that measuring devices will
record. It's used in engineering design, and engineers couldn't give a
rat's ass what it means as long as they build things that work and people
will pay money for.
Spaceman
> I'm talking about real experiments done with measuring devices that exist,
Earth spin has been experimentally proven
I think your ignorance is pitifully sad.
The Earth and Sun do EXIST.
your clocks were based upon them MORON!
you gotta be a silly ungrownup student.
<LOL>
The Earth and Sun do not exist according to Greg guys!
<LOL>
Greg,
I suggest you get away from the computer and watch
an ACTUAL day go by once,
It's amazing ya know,
and I know you have not done this or you would not even bother
with these posts.
If you actually do this,
You will feel the Earth move under your feet during
a dark night in the field.
Maybe,
you will get a visitor too!
:)
Go for it!
Away from city Lights.
see the heavens move once for REAL!
I DARE YOU!
If you do,
you will start to believe all I say.
and I did not even brainwash you.
I only let you see the facts firsthand.
and that is the best data any scientist could want.
first hand data for free.
Orl Kerrect?
tadchem
> I meant to say -frusion-. The Earth being TINY compared
> to the sun, doesn't mean that fusion EXISTS weirdos.
Sorry, but I couldn't find "frusion" in 746 on-line dictionaries.
Could you please let us *all* know what the hell you think you're going on
about?
Abstinence from further ad hominem attacks would also be appreciated.
Tom Davidson
Brighton, CO
Warren Brown
speed of light newtonian mechanics becomes a very poor estimate, and that
cannot be argued with! That's all I was saying.
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:abs0mt$q65$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
>> I'm talking about real experiments done with measuring devices that exist,
>
>Earth spin has been experimentally proven
>I think your ignorance is pitifully sad.
This experiment was done, a clock was flown around on airplanes,
relativity correctly predicted the time it gave.
The Earth did not fly around on airplanes, so your thought experiment
cannot be a valid investigation of the prediction. By assuming from the
beginning that the rotation rate of the Earth would not change for the
traveling twin you've defined relativity wrong, not proven it wrong.
Now, it's one thing if you simply disagree with the interpretation of the
result. But if you cannot even understand why the Earth does not measure
the proper time of the traveling twin, then you don't even understand the
theory.
>Greg,
>I suggest you get away from the computer and watch
>an ACTUAL day go by once,
>It's amazing ya know,
>and I know you have not done this or you would not even bother
>with these posts.
>
>If you actually do this,
>You will feel the Earth move under your feet during
>a dark night in the field.
>
>Maybe,
>you will get a visitor too!
I've sat quietly while a fox trotted back and forth through the leaves,
doing whatever they do at night when they trot back and forth through the
leaves. When I went back another night with a camera, the whine of the
flash attachment scared him off.
>Go for it!
>Away from city Lights.
>see the heavens move once for REAL!
>I DARE YOU!
>
>If you do,
>you will start to believe all I say.
>and I did not even brainwash you.
>I only let you see the facts firsthand.
>and that is the best data any scientist could want.
>first hand data for free.
I believe you, the Earth rotates. But it gives us no insight into the
Twin's Paradox. The traveling twin leaves the Earth behind, so the Earth
does not measure the traveler's proper time.
Richard Herring
<kp.ph...@LIBERTYSURF.FR> writes
[alt group snipped by server]
>Beat your professor
>
>Most people who attend this group are students. Here is a opportunity to
>beat your professor, but not with your fist although some may wish to
>because the problem they gave you made you have headache. Rather, beat them
>the regular way, by giving them a problem they can solve.
Congratulations. You have now united Spaceman, Shead and Hunter in a
single thread. With any luck the positive feedback will make them
disappear up their own infundibula.
--
Richard Herring
Boris Mohar
wrote:
>
>Earth spin has been experimentally proven
No kidding.
>I think your ignorance is pitifully sad.
Don't cry.
>The Earth and Sun do EXIST.
Glad you know.
>your clocks were based upon them MORON!
Not any more.
>I suggest you get away from the computer and watch
>an ACTUAL day go by once,
>It's amazing ya know,
>and I know you have not done this or you would not even bother
>with these posts.
Small things amuse small minds.
>If you actually do this,
>You will feel the Earth move under your feet during
I get that when I am porking my wife but than I am lying down.
>a dark night in the field.
We use a bed.
>Maybe,
>you will get a visitor too!
>:)
A threesome?
>Go for it!
Yeha!
>Away from city Lights.
>see the heavens move once for REAL!
>I DARE YOU!
>If you do,
>you will start to believe all I say.
>and I did not even brainwash you.
>I only let you see the facts firsthand.
>and that is the best data any scientist could want.
>first hand data for free.
>
>Orl Kerrect?
About 400 micrograms of d-lysergic acid diethylamide would clean your
clock real good.
Spaceman
news:absaap$t3v$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> Maybe, maybe not but the fact of the matter is at speeds approaching the
> speed of light newtonian mechanics becomes a very poor estimate, and that
> cannot be argued with! That's all I was saying.
Actually Warren,
It can be argued with,
Not once have they ever got anything solid coming close
to such speed and doing the measurements.
The truth is they only have non- solids moving fast so far.
and as far as I'm concerned
an electron does not model a StarShip at all.
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Keep believing in the wall.
It's your wall,
not mine,
Lightspeed does no such things to solids.
and not one friggen experminet has proven such,
believe the parrots or look around.
The truth can show you NOTHING solid has been
accelerated to such speeds to actually do a REAL experiment
with solids moving at high speeds.
That is the truth,
Ignore it like physicists all you want.
I'm glad NASA doesn't.
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>"Warren Brown" <war...@zapo.net> wrote in message
>news:absaap$t3v$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>> Maybe, maybe not but the fact of the matter is at speeds approaching the
>> speed of light newtonian mechanics becomes a very poor estimate, and that
>> cannot be argued with! That's all I was saying.
>
>Actually Warren,
>It can be argued with,
>Not once have they ever got anything solid coming close
>to such speed and doing the measurements.
>
>The truth is they only have non- solids moving fast so far.
>and as far as I'm concerned
>an electron does not model a StarShip at all.
>NOT EVEN CLOSE.
>
Does a proton qualify.
Or a Helium core?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:ue2ndbm...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:abrlj8$p2k$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
> > I caught on to the part where science involves doing experiments to test a
> > theory. And all experiments done are consistent with special relativity.
>
> No,
> all experiments that agree are agreed upon and all experments
> that can prove it wrong ar ignored from the brainwashing strength.
>
> > When you get to high speeds or energies, Newtonian mechanics doesn't
> > work! And no number of thought experiments will change that.
>
> Wrong.
> when you get to high speed using elelctrons (energy)
> you can get all sorts of cool effects the electron does
> since it's not solid and acts like a superfuid,
> not a solid.
>
> when you accelerate a solid.
> it does not care about light.
> and speeds of such have no limits.
> If lightspeed has something to do with speed.
> how come things can move fast in the dark.
Wow!
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#DarkFast
Who can guess the title without peaking?
Dirk Vdm
animatedshane
the objects mass becomes infinite and thus carries everything behind
in. Because with infinite mass this object would have infinite
gravity. All this talk about solids should be directed at whether or
not this object has mass.
Gordon D. Pusch
> Actually it's a mathematical wall. With the velocity of light speed,
> the objects mass becomes infinite and thus carries everything behind
> in. Because with infinite mass this object would have infinite
> gravity.
This is a common misconception. See the FAQ:
<http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html>
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Spaceman
"animatedshane" <animat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f49a0633.02051...@posting.google.com...
> Actually it's a mathematical wall.
Yup,
math wall..
<LOL>
>With the velocity of light speed,
> the objects mass becomes infinite
WRONG!
kinetic energy increases from speed and the
mass remains the same unless it picked up mass while traveling.
Kuan-Ting Lin
It took me several hours to understand what you tried to demonstrate (or may
be I still not). I can appreciate what you did so far. I am a (senior)
scientist who has been working on the electromagnetics and antennas for many
years; I seldom saw any challenge like this. In other words, I admire your
effort, and I would encourage you to continue to do so.
There are several things I would like to point out for your attention.
First, here we are talking about AC current; at certain instance the current
should reverse, so are the E and H field at all places. Second, the induced
E field on the wire is not zero all the time, and it should change as
current changes. The induced E field on the wire indicated that you need an
AC source to against it in order to sustain the current. The differential
continuity doesn't gaurante its continuity. Third, if the coil you put in
has induced current flowing in it, the current should produce another
induced induced E-field on the first wire. Then the symmetry will not
preserve; you are getting deeper to solve this engineering (not science)
problem. Fourth, the E and H is 90 degree out-of-phase, and there is no
energy radiated....
This problem is like, in the circuit, that you put an AC current through an
inductor. The inductor does not have resistance in it but will produce a
induced voltage to work against current (but 90 degree out-of-phase). You
figure out the rest......
Ignore what I sent you e-mail earily about the validity of your assumptions.
Bye.
KT
"kuan Peng" <kp.ph...@LIBERTYSURF.FR> wrote in message
news:abpp9h$2i83$1...@news5.isdnet.net...
> Beat your professor
>
> Most people who attend this group are students. Here is a opportunity to
> beat your professor, but not with your fist although some may wish to
> because the problem they gave you made you have headache. Rather, beat
them
> the regular way, by giving them a problem they can solve.
>
> In fact, every science has its own limit. For example, the limit of Newton
's
> mechanics is speed. For high speed, classical mechanics is no longer
> valuable. Until now, electromagnetism has not known limit. Now we have
one.
> It is in this web page: http://yourcenar.chez.tiscali.fr/.
>
> This text shows a irreconcilable contradiction that the 3rd Maxwell
equation
> encounters. This text is on the web for very short time. This is why, your
> professor would even not be aware of it. Just ask them to solve this
> contradiction.
>
> If your professor come back by saying: "I cannot solve it", he is a good
> professor. Because he have paid attention to your question and he have
> understand it. If he says: "you must not make the same error", he would
not
> be very good. Because he has surely not well read it.
>
> --
> Up to date text is here http://yourcenar.chez.tiscali.fr/
> Kuan PENG
>
>
kuan Peng
you have been given this problem by one of your students who wanted to
"beat" you. You read it because I am chinese and you are chinese. Any other
professor would throw my paper away. Thus, they are really beaten in some
ways.
I invent this title "beat your professor" because no professional of
electromagnetism would consider my work. My biggest effort is not in my
research, but in putting my paper in hand of these professionals.
Now, go back on scientific subject. You said E and H have 90 degree phase
shift. Wrong!
dEz/dr=dB/dt in space. They are in time phase. I think you wanted to say E
and I are in 90 phase shift. This is right. Thus, E outside the conductor
and inside the conductor have 90 degree phase shift because H and I are in
phase! Is it wonderful? Or awful?
You said E is not always 0 inside the conductor. Wrong! The self induced
voltage is counter- balanced by the outer tension source. Otherwise, there
would not be current.
self induced voltage + tension source voltage =0. E=(U self+ U source
+RI)=RI
Again wonderful or awful!
Third, without pick up coils, the discontinuity still exists on the surface
of the wire, with cylindrical symmetry.
Best regard
--
No Update here http://yourcenar.chez.tiscali.fr/
Kuan PENG
kuan Peng
If you dont understand the short explaination in the message, goto my page.
I have added a section about the phase.
--
Updated at 19 may 2002 http://yourcenar.chez.tiscali.fr/
Kuan PENG
Kuan-Ting Lin
You are getting too emotional. Cool down! I am not a professor and don't
teach at all but research. I understand what you're going through.
Studying in this field needs persistance and perception which may take long
time to get. I am still strugling....
The problem with the paper is that you started out with a wrong assumption
on the magnetic field and any derivation from that would lead to an
erroneous result, which of course contradicts with the theory. I don't know
what is your level on the subject and how can I explained the problem more
effectively. If you can give me a few hints on your background, I might be
able to illustrate the subject more clearly to you.
You misread my response about the induced E-field on the surface of the
wire. I wrote "induced" not "total". The total E-field is zero on the
surface which is the combining of both "induced" and "impressed" E-fields.
The E and H everywhere outside of the wire is 90 degree out of phase,
because the "true" magnetic field representation does not have phasor
associated with the distance. The terms "induced" and "impressed" are
professional , not my creation.
If on the wire E and I are 90 degree out-of-phase, which means no real power
flows in, the E and H at far field should be 90 degree out-of-phase(no power
flows out, not radiating). This is an analogy to the inductor coil I tried
to show you in the last response.
KT
"kuan Peng" <kp.ph...@LIBERTYSURF.FR> wrote in message
news:ac6nbo$2jle$2...@news4.isdnet.net...
John C. Polasek
Re your objection to Maxwell's 3d law, are you not missing a lot by
neglecting that B = k/r, that is its intensity declines with range,
just as E = k/r (so the power ExH declines as the square law).
Then couldnt you have a contribution dB/dt = c*dB/dr? Wouldn't that
invalidate your conclusion? I have not taken the time to follow the
whole thing.
John C. Polasek
grelbr
> and as far as I'm concerned
> an electron does not model a StarShip at all.
> NOT EVEN CLOSE.
Hmmm. Geeze, I guess a 747 commercial jet is not a solid
then because relativistic effects are detectable on them.
Both special and general.
I guess the GPS satelites are not solids then, because
the relativistic corrections, if not performed, would
cause a location error of some kilometers per day.
And for them it is required to do both special and general
relativity corrections.
You saying it does not make it so. Scientists measuring it
does make it so. Relativistic effects are observed on a
completely routine basis.
Whether an electron models a starship or not is not relevant.
What is relevant is the nature of physics. And that is
patently relativistic.
grelbr
Spaceman
"grelbr" <gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a325379.02052...@posting.google.com...
> "Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message
news:<ue4kguc...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > The truth is they only have non- solids moving fast so far.
> > and as far as I'm concerned
> > an electron does not model a StarShip at all.
> > NOT EVEN CLOSE.
>
> Hmmm. Geeze, I guess a 747 commercial jet is not a solid
> then because relativistic effects are detectable on them.
> Both special and general.
No,
the clocks have the silly effect you speak of.
The jets we use, ignore this effect to be on time though.
too bad you don't get that part.
Do you understand syncronized time at all?
> I guess the GPS satelites are not solids then, because
> the relativistic corrections, if not performed, would
> cause a location error of some kilometers per day.
> And for them it is required to do both special and general
> relativity corrections.
same crap,
Wake up there kiddo,
We ignore GPS time dilations to have syncronized time.
Do you know why yet?
Again you have no clue about why we sync clocks huh?
It's called "To be on time for dinner"
It's simple.
and we do it because SR is wrong.
> You saying it does not make it so. Scientists measuring it
> does make it so. Relativistic effects are observed on a
> completely routine basis.
The effects are not observed
They are measured by clocks (the problem device itself)
the clocks are screwing up.
only fools think time can change because of a clocks ticks
and tocks.
> Whether an electron models a starship or not is not relevant.
Bullshit
It's very relavant.
> What is relevant is the nature of physics. And that is
> patently relativistic.
How many revs of Earth old are the Paradox twins?
How many revs of Earth have the clocks existed for?
You sir,
are lost in time.
I feel sorry for you too.
maybe someday you will learn HOW a clock works.
and What it actually counts.
animatedshane
How can mass stay the same if the speed of light is a constant? Mass
must increase when energy increases.
animatedshane
Another interesting note is that some experiments have shown that
light can be bent with gravitational fields. Thus indicating light has
mass.
Spaceman
> How can mass stay the same if the speed of light is a constant? Mass
> must increase when energy increases.
Mass merely needs to move to increase energy.
the mass stays the same mass
the mass does not increase because it moves unless
it is picking up mass like a rolling stone picks up dirt.
mass does not increase with speed alone.
if the mass increases, it gained mass by absorbing
what was in it's path.
mass can't magically gain mass from speed alone.
it gains kinetic energy from pseed alone, but not mass.
Spaceman
> light can be bent with gravitational fields. Thus indicating light has
> mass.
Light is an effect of a masses vibration.
electrons are the uusal mass that vibrates to produce light.
the lights mass is the electrons vibration. (a photon wave)
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"animatedshane" <animat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:f49a0633.02052...@posting.google.com...
>> How can mass stay the same if the speed of light is a constant? Mass
>> must increase when energy increases.
>
>Mass merely needs to move to increase energy.
>the mass stays the same mass
>
>the mass does not increase because it moves unless
>it is picking up mass like a rolling stone picks up dirt.
If you want to accelerate a fast moving mass, the needed force is not
given by f =m*a with m beeing the mass at rest.
This has been measured many times.
Since you say mass doesn´t increase, please state the formula which
describes the force needed to archieve a certain acceleration when the
object is already moving with speed v.
>mass does not increase with speed alone.
>if the mass increases, it gained mass by absorbing
>what was in it's path.
>mass can't magically gain mass from speed alone.
>it gains kinetic energy from pseed alone, but not mass.
What´s that magic kinetic energy?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
wrote:
First part right, conclusion is not.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
If vacuum is full of electrons (cause light can pass it), why doesn´t
we measure an electric field?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
news:k2fafu0n96stoe79o...@4ax.com...
> If you want to accelerate a fast moving mass, the needed force is not
> given by f =m*a with m beeing the mass at rest.
> This has been measured many times.
and has nothing to do with mass increasing as its speed increases.
the a changes .
the m remains
the f changes.
m does not have to change.
only fools think so.
> Since you say mass doesn´t increase, please state the formula which
> describes the force needed to archieve a certain acceleration when the
> object is already moving with speed v.
Kinetic energy formula works fine.
Never tried it any other way huh?
Spaceman
> If vacuum is full of electrons (cause light can pass it), why doesn´t
> we measure an electric field?
they are not hitting each other enough to produce the field.
electrons that don't hit and vibrate don't have any effect
that will show they are there at all.
What is the electric field strength generated from
a grounded piece of copper?
Gregory L. Hansen
Zrelov, Tiapkin, Farago, "Measurement of the mass of 660 MeV Protons",
_Soviet Physics JETP_ vol. 34 (7), no. 3, 384-387 (1958).
Kinetic energy K = (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1) m c^2 works fine.
K = 1/2 m v^2 breaks down at high speeds.
Although it's old-fashioned and, in my opinion, misleading to say the mass
increases. Just report the energy and momentum.
Jan C. Bernauer
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <ufafnd4...@corp.supernews.com>,
>Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>>
>>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>>news:k2fafu0n96stoe79o...@4ax.com...
>>> If you want to accelerate a fast moving mass, the needed force is not
>>> given by f =m*a with m beeing the mass at rest.
>>> This has been measured many times.
>>
>>and has nothing to do with mass increasing as its speed increases.
>>the a changes .
>>the m remains
>>the f changes.
>>
>>m does not have to change.
>>only fools think so.
>>
>>> Since you say mass doesnŽt increase, please state the formula which
>>> describes the force needed to archieve a certain acceleration when the
>>> object is already moving with speed v.
>>
>>Kinetic energy formula works fine.
>>Never tried it any other way huh?
>
>Zrelov, Tiapkin, Farago, "Measurement of the mass of 660 MeV Protons",
>_Soviet Physics JETP_ vol. 34 (7), no. 3, 384-387 (1958).
>
>Kinetic energy K = (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1) m c^2 works fine.
>K = 1/2 m v^2 breaks down at high speeds.
>
>Although it's old-fashioned and, in my opinion, misleading to say the mass
>increases. Just report the energy and momentum.
Yes, I feel the same. We, at least, should refer to rest mass and
effective mass or such.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:k2fafu0n96stoe79o...@4ax.com...
>> If you want to accelerate a fast moving mass, the needed force is not
>> given by f =m*a with m beeing the mass at rest.
>> This has been measured many times.
>
>and has nothing to do with mass increasing as its speed increases.
>the a changes .
>the m remains
>the f changes.
>
>m does not have to change.
>only fools think so.
>
BUT, when measured, the force needed to get the same acceleration
isn´t the same when the object already has a velocity.
If f=ma is right, then m=m(v).
Since you say m is not dependend on v, what´s the correct formula?
Say, you want to accelerate a 1kg object 1 meter per second^2, you
need a force of 1 Newton when the object has no speed at the
beginning.
What force do you need to accelerate the same object with 1 meter per
second^2 when it is going, say, 1,000,000 km/ second ?
>> Since you say mass doesnŽt increase, please state the formula which
>> describes the force needed to archieve a certain acceleration when the
>> object is already moving with speed v.
>
>Kinetic energy formula works fine.
>Never tried it any other way huh?
To chicken to give the formula for v?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:eafafusahkkoidv8o...@4ax.com...
>> If vacuum is full of electrons (cause light can pass it), why doesnŽt
>> we measure an electric field?
>
>they are not hitting each other enough to produce the field.
>electrons that don't hit and vibrate don't have any effect
>that will show they are there at all.
>
>What is the electric field strength generated from
>a grounded piece of copper?
>
First order in multipole is zero. No net charge.
Higher order differ.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
> Kinetic energy K = (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1) m c^2 works fine.
> K = 1/2 m v^2 breaks down at high speeds.
No,
it does not break down for solid objects.
stop parroting.
and..
anyway.
> Although it's old-fashioned and, in my opinion, misleading to say the mass
> increases. Just report the energy and momentum.
See?
the mass does not increase from speed alone.
the above equation agrees also with the normal kinetic energy formula.
change the speed and the energy changes
the mass need not change and should not unless
it actually picked up mass.
Mass does not change magically,
It needs real reason.
gaining mass (as in a rolling snowball or water ballon thrown in the rain)
is the only REAL reason.
speed alone does not do such.
If you find mass increased.
it gathered it or your math is wrong.
Spaceman
> BUT, when measured, the force needed to get the same acceleration
and that has nothing to do with anything I say,.
you still twist like a dancer
> If f=ma is right, then m=m(v).
> Since you say m is not dependend on v, what愀 the correct formula?
What the hell are you talking about,
you are twisting so badly you are not even in the same
problem anymore.
Please show me mass gaining from speed alone.
and I will show you where you are wrong
> Say, you want to accelerate a 1kg object 1 meter per second^2, you
> need a force of 1 Newton when the object has no speed at the
> beginning.
twist twist twist.
you are completly lost now .
you like being lost huh?
again,
all this crap is irrelavant.
is that how you troll?
with irrelavance?
It sure seems that way still.
> What force do you need to accelerate the same object with 1 meter per
> second^2 when it is going, say, 1,000,000 km/ second ?
Who cares.
the force needed is not the mass beign accelerated.
you are lost in your own twist.
> To chicken to give the formula for v?
To stupid to realize it won't matter?
Please show us all where mass increases with speed.
and give a REAL example instead of this twisting troll bad math crap.
Show me mass gaining mass from speed alone and
explain the reason the mass is gained.
I will then show you where you will be wrong
for mass does not gain with speed alone.
only fools like you think it can.
How much mass does my 75 ton shuttle gain
when I'm doing .75 lightspeed?
How much when I am doing 2 times lightspeed?
How mcuh when I only do about 25,000 mph?
I will give you a hint.
not one friggen mole unless it hits me and
sticks to my ship!
DUH!
Spaceman
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 16:57:17 -0400, "Spaceman"
> <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
> >news:eafafusahkkoidv8o...@4ax.com...
> >> we measure an electric field?
> >
> >they are not hitting each other enough to produce the field.
> >electrons that don't hit and vibrate don't have any effect
> >that will show they are there at all.
> >
> >What is the electric field strength generated from
> >a grounded piece of copper?
> >
> First order in multipole is zero. No net charge.
> Higher order differ.
zero huh?
where are the electons then?
you said electrons always have electric field.
so
where is your precious field in a grounded piece of copper now?
magically not there huh?
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:9rgafu4hb42dmt70h...@4ax.com...
>> BUT, when measured, the force needed to get the same acceleration
>> isnŽt the same when the object already has a velocity.
>
>and that has nothing to do with anything I say,.
>you still twist like a dancer
You say: Mass doesn´t change from speed alone
I say: When mass does not change from speed alone, and f=ma is not the
correct formula, what is the right formula?
If the mass doesn´t change, f=ma couldn´t be right, because it has
been measured many times otherwise.
>> If f=ma is right, then m=m(v).
>> Since you say m is not dependend on v, whatŽs the correct formula?
>
>What the hell are you talking about,
Physics, SR, and one of newton´s axioms.
>you are twisting so badly you are not even in the same
>problem anymore.
>
>Please show me mass gaining from speed alone.
>and I will show you where you are wrong
Electron accelerator.
Proton accelerator.
Alpha-particle Accelerator.
>
>> Say, you want to accelerate a 1kg object 1 meter per second^2, you
>> need a force of 1 Newton when the object has no speed at the
>> beginning.
>
>twist twist twist.
>you are completly lost now .
>you like being lost huh?
>again,
>all this crap is irrelavant.
>is that how you troll?
>with irrelavance?
Acceleration is irrelevant?
Or are you scared by the numbers?
What´s the problem?
Can´t answer that question? What´s the force needed for the object
given?
>It sure seems that way still.
>
>> What force do you need to accelerate the same object with 1 meter per
>> second^2 when it is going, say, 1,000,000 km/ second ?
>
>Who cares.
>the force needed is not the mass beign accelerated.
>you are lost in your own twist.
No, but the mass is force/acceleration. if that ratio changes, the
mass has changed.
>
>> To chicken to give the formula for v?
>
>To stupid to realize it won't matter?
To stupid to know the answer?
>Please show us all where mass increases with speed.
>and give a REAL example instead of this twisting troll bad math crap.
Bad math?
F=ma?
This is one of newton´s axioms. At least THAT you should know.
>Show me mass gaining mass from speed alone and
>explain the reason the mass is gained.
Take a static electric field. Take a proton. let the proton go. proton
accelerates in the field. Proton´s acceleration get´s smaler.
Force=field*charge stays the same. So:
Mass= force/acceleration gets bigger.
>
>I will then show you where you will be wrong
>for mass does not gain with speed alone.
>only fools like you think it can.
>
>How much mass does my 75 ton shuttle gain
>when I'm doing .75 lightspeed?
(gamma(0.75)-1) *75tons
>How much when I am doing 2 times lightspeed?
Not possible
>How mcuh when I only do about 25,000 mph?
(gamma(25.000mpg/c)-1)*75tons
All this mass gain is effective mass gain.
>I will give you a hint.
>not one friggen mole unless it hits me and
>sticks to my ship!
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:s7hafu83hsa763m1j...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 May 2002 16:57:17 -0400, "Spaceman"
>> <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>> >news:eafafusahkkoidv8o...@4ax.com...
>> >> If vacuum is full of electrons (cause light can pass it), why doesnZt
>> >> we measure an electric field?
>> >
>> >they are not hitting each other enough to produce the field.
>> >electrons that don't hit and vibrate don't have any effect
>> >that will show they are there at all.
>> >
>> >What is the electric field strength generated from
>> >a grounded piece of copper?
>> >
>> First order in multipole is zero. No net charge.
>> Higher order differ.
>
>zero huh?
>where are the electons then?
>
>you said electrons always have electric field.
>so
>where is your precious field in a grounded piece of copper now?
>magically not there huh?
Ever heard of protons?
You know, they are about 2000 times heavier than electrons, in the
core of an atom, and, guess what? positive charged.
And guess again: RIGHT! the field of the negative charged electron and
the positive charged electron CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.
You know, that愀 like 1-1=0.
Subtraction!
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
> You say: Mass doesn´t change from speed alone
> I say: When mass does not change from speed alone, and f=ma is not the
> correct formula, what is the right formula?
F=ma can be used,
why do you say it can't?
It can!
It can easily show mass not changing.
mass of 1 gram moving 10 mph
mass of 1 gram moving 20 mph
same mass
higher force.
speed alone changing not the mass.
but the energy alone.
Why do you twist it so badly?
> If the mass doesn´t change, f=ma couldn´t be right, because it has
> been measured many times otherwise.
parroting does no good here.
show me where the mass gains.
I just showed you it does not.
Can't do that basic math huh?
> Physics, SR, and one of newton´s axioms.
parroting does not gain crackers anymore.
explain yourself or we all know you
passed by cheating.
> Electron accelerator.
> Proton accelerator.
> Alpha-particle Accelerator.
Parrot
parrot
parrot.
still no physics.
figures.
> Acceleration is irrelevant?
No,
I'ts the change along with the energy.
the mass does not change.
the energy and speed do.
> Or are you scared by the numbers?
you have no numbers.
you have parrot droppings only.
1 gram 10 mph
1 gram 100 mph
why can the mass stay and yet energy or force is higher?
simple.
because you have no clue how it works.
> What´s the problem?
you thoughts on mass inctreasing is the problem.
you can't grasp the fact that it does not unless it
gathered it in it's path.
> Can´t answer that question? What´s the force needed for the object
> given?
higher force.
Tell me this.
I have a can on the end of a piece of wood 20 feet long.
I pick of the end the can is on.
it rolls.
it took a certain amount for me to pick up ..
as the can moves.
I have less mass to pick up yet the can does gain speed
with my less force.
you figure it out.
you have no clue about force.
I just made something move faster with less force than needed
before it started moving.
> No, but the mass is force/acceleration. if that ratio changes, the
> mass has changed.
No,
it has not,
the force needed to move the mass has.
you are one bad twisty poo.
and sad for physics.
> To stupid to know the answer?
stupid is the person that thinks mass cvhanges and has not
shown such yet at all.
that would be you.
> Bad math?
> F=ma?
> This is one of newton´s axioms. At least THAT you should know.
and
It shows I am correct when used correctly.
Too bad you refuse to use it at all or you would see you are wrong.
> Take a static electric field. Take a proton. let the proton go. proton
> accelerates in the field. Proton´s acceleration get´s smaler.
> Force=field*charge stays the same. So:
> Mass= force/acceleration gets bigger.
<LOL>
fool!
again,
you have not gained mass.
you gained energy and the energy is being thought
as a mass increase when it's the speed that increased
not the mass.
> >I will then show you where you will be wrong
> >for mass does not gain with speed alone.
> >only fools like you think it can.
> >
> >How much mass does my 75 ton shuttle gain
> >when I'm doing .75 lightspeed?
>
> (gamma(0.75)-1) *75tons
<LOL>
gamma!
you are lost !
so lost ..
it's sad.
> >How much when I am doing 2 times lightspeed?
> Not possible
No proof does not mean not impossible,
Too chicken to try it huh?
> >How mcuh when I only do about 25,000 mph?
> (gamma(25.000mpg/c)-1)*75tons
>
> All this mass gain is effective mass gain.
Not!
such bologna is real sad.
> >I will give you a hint.
> >not one friggen mole unless it hits me and
> >sticks to my ship!
and not one actual mass gain shown.
fuzzy math.
It's sad.
and stupid.
why do'nt you get it?
Are you a troll or really really brainwashed?
I hope you were brainwashed.
for trolls have pitiful lives.
and the brainwashed have no clue about such
Realities.
Hey Jan.
mass doe not gain from speed alone.
and not one frioggen experiment has shown so.
and in fact,
all REAL stuff loses mass as it gains speed.
figure that out!
I bet you can't.
Spaceman
> Ever heard of protons?
Yup,
they are made of positively charged electrons.
> You know, they are about 2000 times heavier than electrons, in the
> core of an atom, and, guess what? positive charged.
yup,
lots of electrons usually mean more mass and more charge.
> And guess again: RIGHT! the field of the negative charged electron and
> the positive charged electron CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.
so what.
that still has nothing to do with mass gaining mass from speed alone.
and has nothing to do with excess electrons non-collisions in space
> You know, that愀 like 1-1=0.
> Subtraction!
You still have no clue,
you can't have 0
anywhere.
Nature abhors it.
and stops it immediately.
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:f6jafukgeh5b0gotv...@4ax.com...
>> You say: Mass doesnŽt change from speed alone
>> I say: When mass does not change from speed alone, and f=ma is not the
>> correct formula, what is the right formula?
>
>F=ma can be used,
>why do you say it can't?
>It can!
No, experiments show it´s wrong for high velocities.
>It can easily show mass not changing.
>
>mass of 1 gram moving 10 mph
>mass of 1 gram moving 20 mph
>same mass
>higher force
Where´s the force? No acceleration, no force...
>speed alone changing not the mass.
>but the energy alone.
>
>Why do you twist it so badly?
I´m not twisting.
You are not understanding.
>
>> If the mass doesnŽt change, f=ma couldnŽt be right, because it has
>> been measured many times otherwise.
>
>parroting does no good here.
That´s stating of facts.
>show me where the mass gains.
Everywhere you accelerate something.
>I just showed you it does not.
You stated it. You haven´t shown it.
>Can't do that basic math huh?
Can´t understand the difference between speed and acclereration, huh?
Can´t see why it is wrong what you say, huh?
>> Physics, SR, and one of newtonŽs axioms.
>
>parroting does not gain crackers anymore.
>explain yourself or we all know you
>passed by cheating.
Most of us understand what i´m writing.
>> Electron accelerator.
>> Proton accelerator.
>> Alpha-particle Accelerator.
>
>Parrot
>parrot
>parrot.
>still no physics.
>figures.
Just because you don´t recognize the words.....
>> Acceleration is irrelevant?
>
>No,
>I'ts the change along with the energy.
>the mass does not change.
>the energy and speed do.
>
>> Or are you scared by the numbers?
>
>you have no numbers.
>you have parrot droppings only.
I gave a specific, easy, problem.
Ok,I does involve multiplication, so it may be to difficult for you.
Otherwise, give the result.
>
>1 gram 10 mph
>1 gram 100 mph
>why can the mass stay and yet energy or force is higher?
>simple.
>because you have no clue how it works.
Calculate the force for the problem i gave. Can´t do it, huh?
>> WhatŽs the problem?
>
>you thoughts on mass inctreasing is the problem.
>you can't grasp the fact that it does not unless it
>gathered it in it's path.
You can´t grasp the fact that it´s not the way you want it to be.
>
>> CanŽt answer that question? WhatŽs the force needed for the object
>> given?
>
>higher force.
Give the number.
>Tell me this.
>I have a can on the end of a piece of wood 20 feet long.
>I pick of the end the can is on.
>it rolls.
>it took a certain amount for me to pick up ..
>as the can moves.
>I have less mass to pick up yet the can does gain speed
>with my less force.
>you figure it out.
>you have no clue about force.
>I just made something move faster with less force than needed
>before it started moving.
An guess what? The acceleration is decreasing! The effect is very very
very small, but, given a long enough wood, the can will no accelerate
at all!
>
>> No, but the mass is force/acceleration. if that ratio changes, the
>> mass has changed.
>
>No,
>it has not,
>the force needed to move the mass has.
>you are one bad twisty poo.
>and sad for physics.
And the force is f= m*a , a is given, f has changed, so *tata* mass
has changed.
Or do you doubt the axioms of newton?
>
>> To stupid to know the answer?
>
>stupid is the person that thinks mass cvhanges and has not
>shown such yet at all.
>that would be you.
>> Bad math?
>> F=ma?
>> This is one of newtonŽs axioms. At least THAT you should know.
>
>and
>It shows I am correct when used correctly.
>Too bad you refuse to use it at all or you would see you are wrong.
I use it all the time.
You haven´t used it once, or you would now why you are wron.
>> Take a static electric field. Take a proton. let the proton go. proton
>> accelerates in the field. ProtonŽs acceleration getŽs smaler.
>> Force=field*charge stays the same. So:
>> Mass= force/acceleration gets bigger.
>
><LOL>
>fool!
>again,
>you have not gained mass.
>you gained energy and the energy is being thought
>as a mass increase when it's the speed that increased
>not the mass.
Ok, then, give the formula which describes the relation between force
and acceleration.
>> >I will then show you where you will be wrong
>> >for mass does not gain with speed alone.
>> >only fools like you think it can.
>> >
>> >How much mass does my 75 ton shuttle gain
>> >when I'm doing .75 lightspeed?
>>
>> (gamma(0.75)-1) *75tons
>
><LOL>
>gamma!
>you are lost !
>so lost ..
>it's sad.
gamma, you know: 1/sqrt(1-beta^2)
with beta=v/c
>
>> >How much when I am doing 2 times lightspeed?
>> Not possible
>
>No proof does not mean not impossible,
>Too chicken to try it huh?
>
>> >How mcuh when I only do about 25,000 mph?
>> (gamma(25.000mpg/c)-1)*75tons
>>
>> All this mass gain is effective mass gain.
>
>Not!
>such bologna is real sad.
>
>> >I will give you a hint.
>> >not one friggen mole unless it hits me and
>> >sticks to my ship!
>
>and not one actual mass gain shown.
>fuzzy math.
This is very basic math. If you can´t grasp it, stay away.
>It's sad.
>and stupid.
>
>why do'nt you get it?
>Are you a troll or really really brainwashed?
>I hope you were brainwashed.
>for trolls have pitiful lives.
>and the brainwashed have no clue about such
>Realities.
>
>Hey Jan.
>mass doe not gain from speed alone.
>and not one frioggen experiment has shown so.
>and in fact,
>all REAL stuff loses mass as it gains speed.
>figure that out!
>
>I bet you can't.
I have done experiments which show that.
Still, you have not given ANY formula.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:cnjafuo8rp20q4842...@4ax.com...
>> Ever heard of protons?
>
>Yup,
>they are made of positively charged electrons.
Positive charged electrons are called positrons.
>
>> You know, they are about 2000 times heavier than electrons, in the
>> core of an atom, and, guess what? positive charged.
>
>yup,
>lots of electrons usually mean more mass and more charge.
No, protons have the exact same charge as electrons, just with another
sign.
>> And guess again: RIGHT! the field of the negative charged electron and
>> the positive charged electron CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.
>
>so what.
>that still has nothing to do with mass gaining mass from speed alone.
>and has nothing to do with excess electrons non-collisions in space
Right, it was the answer of your question how I could dare to state
that the grounded cooper plate has no field around it.
>
>> You know, thatŽs like 1-1=0.
>> Subtraction!
>
>You still have no clue,
>you can't have 0
>anywhere.
>Nature abhors it.
>and stops it immediately.
Ok, take a bottle.
There a exactly 0 antiuran-atoms it it.
See, 0, everywhere.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
> Where´s the force? No acceleration, no force...
What the hell are you talking about.
you are friggen lost.
>
> >speed alone changing not the mass.
> >but the energy alone.
> >
> >Why do you twist it so badly?
> I´m not twisting.
> You are not understanding.
You are twisting,
I understand that quite well.
> Everywhere you accelerate something.
the mass does not change.
the force or kinetic energy does.
you are a friggen fool or a sad troll.
> Can´t understand the difference between speed and acclereration, huh?
> Can´t see why it is wrong what you say, huh?
and yet again,
not one friggen bit of proof of gaining mass fro mspeed alone.
you are a bad troll too..
> Most of us understand what i´m writing.
No,
most understand you are trolling and not showing any proof
at all for your parrot droppings.
> Just because you don´t recognize the words.....
words like kinetic energy and force
that you ignore are the changing numbers and not the mass.
not at all.
I recognize the words quite well.
I use them in my work.
What do you do for work?
suck money off the governement for crap like gaining mass bad math?
> I gave a specific, easy, problem.
You gave nothing
you also lie now by saying so.
> Ok,I does involve multiplication, so it may be to difficult for you.
> Otherwise, give the result.
The result seems to be you are a troll or an idiot.
I now hope you are a troll for if physics has such idiots
it's in real bad shape,
>
> >
> >1 gram 10 mph
> >1 gram 100 mph
> >why can the mass stay and yet energy or force is higher?
> >simple.
> >because you have no clue how it works.
>
> Calculate the force for the problem i gave. Can´t do it, huh?
I see you won't look at the above huh?
you gave no problem.
I gave you one you have not touched still.
> You can´t grasp the fact that it´s not the way you want it to be.
Are you going to show an actual REAL way the mass can gain
or are you going to parrot off more and still ignore
the mass does not change with speed alone.
> Give the number.
What number,
you gave no problem for a number ot be given.
I gave a problem that shows WHAT changes.
you are a fool for ignoring the facts given.
>
> >Tell me this.
> >I have a can on the end of a piece of wood 20 feet long.
> >I pick of the end the can is on.
> >it rolls.
> >it took a certain amount for me to pick up ..
> >as the can moves.
> >I have less mass to pick up yet the can does gain speed
> >with my less force.
> >you figure it out.
> >you have no clue about force.
> >I just made something move faster with less force than needed
> >before it started moving.
>
>
> An guess what? The acceleration is decreasing! The effect is very very
> very small, but, given a long enough wood, the can will no accelerate
> at all!
parrot droppings and still no actual realization of what gains.
you are a fool and an idiot.
or a sad ass troll.
100 mph chnaged to any hihger speed does not make mass gain
It makes the kinetic energy or force change
the mass remains the same
and you are an idiotic fool or troll.
Still refuse to accept the fact that mass does not change from speed
alone and you have no proof it does at all.
that is REALLY sad.
I feel sorry for you if you are a troll.
I feel more sorry for you if you are not.
Mass gains nothing from speed alone.
only fools like you think it does ever.
>
> >
> >> No, but the mass is force/acceleration. if that ratio changes, the
> >> mass has changed.
> >
> >No,
> >it has not,
> >the force needed to move the mass has.
> >you are one bad twisty poo.
> >and sad for physics.
> And the force is f= m*a , a is given, f has changed, so *tata* mass
> has changed.
>
> Or do you doubt the axioms of newton?
>
> >
> >> To stupid to know the answer?
> >
> >stupid is the person that thinks mass cvhanges and has not
> >shown such yet at all.
> >that would be you.
>
> >> Bad math?
> >> F=ma?
> >> This is one of newtonZs axioms. At least THAT you should know.
> >
> >and
> >It shows I am correct when used correctly.
> >Too bad you refuse to use it at all or you would see you are wrong.
>
> I use it all the time.
> You haven´t used it once, or you would now why you are wron.
>
> >> Take a static electric field. Take a proton. let the proton go. proton
> >> accelerates in the field. ProtonZs acceleration getZs smaler.
Spaceman
> Positive charged electrons are called positrons.
what are protons made of?
> No, protons have the exact same charge as electrons, just with another
> sign.
<LOL>
signs?
there are no REAL signs.
all are above 0
higher and lowers above 0
there is no "negative" reality.
> Right, it was the answer of your question how I could dare to state
> that the grounded cooper plate has no field around it.
I asked you what the field would read when the copper is in a grounded
state..
you told me 0
that is not a field.
that is 0
> Ok, take a bottle.
> There a exactly 0 antiuran-atoms it it.
> See, 0, everywhere.
No,
see 0 nowhere.
and not in the bottle for somehting took it's place
probably air.
and never 0 of it.
you are a 0
ZERO.
Herman Trivilino
> If you want to accelerate a fast moving mass, the needed force is not
> given by f =m*a with m beeing the mass at rest.
> This has been measured many times.
Nor is it given by f=m*a with m being the relativistic mass!
While the arguing continues over which one we should call the mass (some
say it should be E/c^2 where E is the total energy, other say it should it
should be E_o/c^2, where E_o is the rest energy), this is instead an
argument about the physics.
The relativistic mass (E/c^2) is NOT a genuine relativistic generalization
of the Newtonian mass (E_o/c^2). There is no m for which f=m*a. In the
first place, f and a are not in general in the same direction, and m is
larger when f is parallel to a than when f is perpendicular to a.
This is discussed at great length in an article by Lev Okun that appeared
in the June 1989 edition of Physics Today: "On the Concept of Mass".
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
kuan Peng
at 1km/s.
--- Begin of the loop
He jumps in. Now he is at 1 km/s speed.
By magic, the plane becomes as large as a planet.
Spaceman is again at rest in this new planet.
Galillee, Newton, and Einstein would agree with me.
There is once more a Concord that passes.
---- Goto the Begin of the loop 350 000 times.
Now, Spaceman have added 350 000 times the speed of 1 km/s.
He has the right to think that he is at 350 000 km/s speed from earth.
As light travels at 300 000 km/s, Spaceman is faster than light
with respect to earth. In his frame, people who stayed on earth
do not matter.
But these people see that Spaceman is always behind the light
that leaves from a light source of him.
In consequence, in the frame of Spaceman, he can add speed as much as he
want.
It is his own mathematic. The people who stayed has another mathematic.
Space man, have you seen my poem? It was very hard to write in english.
You are a wonderful poet,
A little schizophrenic I bet.
Let me show your other face,
A reasonnable Physical Ace.
Because you are perfectly right,
Relativity is a question of math.
See this example if you like,
Add 2 to 3 makes 5.
--
Kuan PENG
Major Update: 28/05/2002
http://yourcenar.chez.tiscali.fr/
kuan Peng
surface of the emittor but 0 within the conductor is enough serious. Follow
is the great line of the physical ideas in a logical chain without
mathematic. This will give you a quick understanding of my 1rst case without
any risk of mathematical error. The second case is treated by <<What make
the current flow?>>
On the surface of an emitting wire
1) A wire carries an AC current. The magnetic field is sinusoidal. The
electric field is in phase with the magnetic field as the fields of a plane
wave are in phase. So, anywhere B is variable, E is variable, including the
surface of the wire.
2) Within the conductor, the electric field is U/length. The self induced
voltage is counter balanced by the source voltage. So, the remaining voltage
is RI=0 if R=0.
3) Across the surface, the electric field is variable on the free space
side, but 0 on the conductor side. It cannot be continuous. Discontinuity
lead to infinite curl of E, i.e. infinite dB/dt.
On the surface of a pick up coil
1) Plane wave comes from the left. When B increases, a current occurs in the
coil. The electric field in the conductor is E= RI/length. In the left part
of the coil, the current goes down, in the right, it goes up. So, E within
the coil is negative in the left part and positive in the right.
2) The wavelength is very long. Suppose E is negative in free space over the
entire coil. Within the coil, E is positive in the right part. E is
discontinuous by crossing the surface of the right part from conductor into
free space. If E is positive in free space, E is negative in the left part.
E is discontinuous by crossing the surface of the left part.
3) If there is a charge gradient within the coil in order to make E positive
in both left and right part, there would be extra Q in lower part where the
current is horizontal. As E=RI, there would be horizontal force Q*E that is
not counter balanced by external or internal force.
2nd case: Force on a charged ring
1) A primary coil carries an AC current. A secondary coil gets an induced
current.
2) The induced current is due to the induced electric field within the
secondary coil.
3) Replace the secondary coil by a charge dielectric ring. The charges that
are not free to move transmit the electric force to the dielectric matter
resulting a torque on the ring.
4) The primary coil is neutral. It does not receive Colombian force. The
ring is fixed. It does not generate magnetic field. So, the primary coil
does not receive Lorentz' force. In consequence, no force is applied on the
primary coil.
5) The ring receive a torque, the primary coil does not receive a torque.
Newton's 3rd law is violated.
Gregory L. Hansen
Unless someone specifically drags in relativistic mass, I just say mass.
It's the magnitude of the momentum four-vector.
Gregory L. Hansen
Spaceman <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:ad3fu2$ch8$3...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu...
>> Kinetic energy K = (1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1) m c^2 works fine.
>> K = 1/2 m v^2 breaks down at high speeds.
>
>No,
>it does not break down for solid objects.
How would you know?
>stop parroting.
>and..
>anyway.
>
>
>> Although it's old-fashioned and, in my opinion, misleading to say the mass
>> increases. Just report the energy and momentum.
>
>See?
>the mass does not increase from speed alone.
>the above equation agrees also with the normal kinetic energy formula.
>
>change the speed and the energy changes
>the mass need not change and should not unless
>it actually picked up mass.
Well, I certainly don't much like relativistic mass. But still,
p = m v / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
Experiments like the one you snipped clearly show that Newton breaks down
at high speeds.
Gordon D. Pusch
> Another interesting note is that some experiments have shown that light
> can be bent with gravitational fields. Thus indicating light has mass.
No, it indicates that light has momentum and energy. The Newtonian concept
of "mass" does not generalize to relativity the way you naively assume it does.
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
Gordon D. Pusch
> How can mass stay the same if the speed of light is a constant?
> Mass must increase when energy increases.
Your physics is about 100 years out of date. Since every occurance
of ``variable'' relativistic mass can be shown to actually be _ENERGY_
in disguise, and since this so-called ``variable mass'' does not have
the correct behavior to be either an inertial =OR= a gravitational mass,
but it =DOES= behave like energy modern physicists simply write it as
what it is -- ENERGY -- and have consigned the concept of ``variable
relativistic mass'' to the dustbin of history.
The only ``mass'' that appears in MODERN treatments of relativity
is the so-called ``rest mass,'' which is more correctly refered to
as the ``proper mass'' --- or simply ``mass,'' since it is now the
only mass that appear in the equations, and the only mass that anyone
who understands relativity cares about.
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:5okafus8ttc8affm5...@4ax.com...
>> WhereŽs the force? No acceleration, no force...
>
>What the hell are you talking about.
>you are friggen lost.
I know what I´m talking about.
The perhaps most fundamental law in physics.
The only one lost is you.
>
>>
>> >speed alone changing not the mass.
>> >but the energy alone.
>> >
>> >Why do you twist it so badly?
>> IŽm not twisting.
>> You are not understanding.
>
>You are twisting,
>I understand that quite well.
As above, you don´t.
>> Everywhere you accelerate something.
>
>the mass does not change.
>the force or kinetic energy does.
>you are a friggen fool or a sad troll.
>
>> CanŽt understand the difference between speed and acclereration, huh?
>> CanŽt see why it is wrong what you say, huh?
>
>and yet again,
>not one friggen bit of proof of gaining mass fro mspeed alone.
>you are a bad troll too..
>
>
>> Most of us understand what iŽm writing.
>
>No,
>most understand you are trolling and not showing any proof
>at all for your parrot droppings.
Should we make a poll?
>> Just because you donŽt recognize the words.....
>
>words like kinetic energy and force
>that you ignore are the changing numbers and not the mass.
>not at all.
>I recognize the words quite well.
>I use them in my work.
>What do you do for work?
>suck money off the governement for crap like gaining mass bad math?
Still no formula from you....
You know what a formula is?
>> I gave a specific, easy, problem.
>
>You gave nothing
>you also lie now by saying so.
Read my messages again. That part about an object of 1 kg mass, 1
m/s^2 acceleration and needed force when v=0 and 1000000 km/s?
>
>> Ok,I does involve multiplication, so it may be to difficult for you.
>> Otherwise, give the result.
>
>The result seems to be you are a troll or an idiot.
>I now hope you are a troll for if physics has such idiots
>it's in real bad shape,
So you can´t give it? Come on, it isn´t that hard....
>
>>
>> >
>> >1 gram 10 mph
>> >1 gram 100 mph
>> >why can the mass stay and yet energy or force is higher?
>> >simple.
>> >because you have no clue how it works.
>>
>> Calculate the force for the problem i gave. CanŽt do it, huh?
>
>I see you won't look at the above huh?
>you gave no problem.
>I gave you one you have not touched still.
Read again, I gave one, with specific details of it.
You gave no accelereation, so no force can be calculated.
>> You canŽt grasp the fact that itŽs not the way you want it to be.
>
>Are you going to show an actual REAL way the mass can gain
>or are you going to parrot off more and still ignore
>the mass does not change with speed alone.
You are ignoring it does. My friends and I operate a machine that does
that regularly (MAinzer MIcrotron Accelerator, a racetrack
accelerator)
>> Give the number.
>
>What number,
>you gave no problem for a number ot be given.
I have, and you are blind.
>I gave a problem that shows WHAT changes.
>you are a fool for ignoring the facts given.
No, you didn´t give a problem.
>
>>
>> >Tell me this.
>> >I have a can on the end of a piece of wood 20 feet long.
>> >I pick of the end the can is on.
>> >it rolls.
>> >it took a certain amount for me to pick up ..
>> >as the can moves.
>> >I have less mass to pick up yet the can does gain speed
>> >with my less force.
>> >you figure it out.
>> >you have no clue about force.
>> >I just made something move faster with less force than needed
>> >before it started moving.
>>
>>
>> An guess what? The acceleration is decreasing! The effect is very very
>> very small, but, given a long enough wood, the can will no accelerate
>> at all!
>
>parrot droppings and still no actual realization of what gains.
>you are a fool and an idiot.
>or a sad ass troll.
Whatever, you still ignore the problem given.
>100 mph chnaged to any hihger speed does not make mass gain
>It makes the kinetic energy or force change
>the mass remains the same
>and you are an idiotic fool or troll.
From your utterings I guess you have no idea what the force is we talk
about.
Is the question: " What force does a 100 mph going mass of 1kg have?"
sensible?
>Still refuse to accept the fact that mass does not change from speed
>alone and you have no proof it does at all.
>
>that is REALLY sad.
>I feel sorry for you if you are a troll.
>I feel more sorry for you if you are not.
>
>Mass gains nothing from speed alone.
>only fools like you think it does ever.
>
Well, good that the industrie knows better.
>
>> >
>> >> No, but the mass is force/acceleration. if that ratio changes, the
>> >> mass has changed.
>> >
>> >No,
>> >it has not,
>> >the force needed to move the mass has.
>> >you are one bad twisty poo.
>> >and sad for physics.
>> And the force is f= m*a , a is given, f has changed, so *tata* mass
>> has changed.
>>
>> Or do you doubt the axioms of newton?
Know comment? Don´t know what I´m taking about?
>> >
>> >> To stupid to know the answer?
>> >
>> >stupid is the person that thinks mass cvhanges and has not
>> >shown such yet at all.
>> >that would be you.
>>
>> >> Bad math?
>> >> F=ma?
>> >> This is one of newtonZs axioms. At least THAT you should know.
>> >
>> >and
>> >It shows I am correct when used correctly.
>> >Too bad you refuse to use it at all or you would see you are wrong.
>>
>> I use it all the time.
>> You havenŽt used it once, or you would now why you are wron.
>>
>> >> Take a static electric field. Take a proton. let the proton go. proton
>> >> accelerates in the field. ProtonZs acceleration getZs smaler.
>> >> Force=field*charge stays the same. So:
>> >> Mass= force/acceleration gets bigger.
>> >
>> ><LOL>
>> >fool!
>> >again,
>> >you have not gained mass.
>> >you gained energy and the energy is being thought
>> >as a mass increase when it's the speed that increased
>> >not the mass.
>>
>> Ok, then, give the formula which describes the relation between force
>> and acceleration.
>>
No Comment? No formula?
>>
>> >> >I will then show you where you will be wrong
>> >> >for mass does not gain with speed alone.
>> >> >only fools like you think it can.
>> >> >
>> >> >How much mass does my 75 ton shuttle gain
>> >> >when I'm doing .75 lightspeed?
>> >>
>> >> (gamma(0.75)-1) *75tons
>> >
>> ><LOL>
>> >gamma!
>> >you are lost !
>> >so lost ..
>> >it's sad.
>>
>> gamma, you know: 1/sqrt(1-beta^2)
>> with beta=v/c
>>
No Comment? Don´t know what I´m talking about?
>> >
>> >> >How much when I am doing 2 times lightspeed?
>> >> Not possible
>> >
>> >No proof does not mean not impossible,
>> >Too chicken to try it huh?
>> >
>> >> >How mcuh when I only do about 25,000 mph?
>> >> (gamma(25.000mpg/c)-1)*75tons
>> >>
>> >> All this mass gain is effective mass gain.
>> >
>> >Not!
>> >such bologna is real sad.
>> >
>> >> >I will give you a hint.
>> >> >not one friggen mole unless it hits me and
>> >> >sticks to my ship!
>> >
>> >and not one actual mass gain shown.
>> >fuzzy math.
>> This is very basic math. If you canŽt grasp it, stay away.
>>
>> >It's sad.
>> >and stupid.
>> >
>> >why do'nt you get it?
>> >Are you a troll or really really brainwashed?
>> >I hope you were brainwashed.
>> >for trolls have pitiful lives.
>> >and the brainwashed have no clue about such
>> >Realities.
>> >
>> >Hey Jan.
>> >mass doe not gain from speed alone.
>> >and not one frioggen experiment has shown so.
>> >and in fact,
>> >all REAL stuff loses mass as it gains speed.
>> >figure that out!
>> >
>> >I bet you can't.
>>
>> I have done experiments which show that.
>>
>> Still, you have not given ANY formula.
>> ----
>> Jan C. Bernauer
>
No Comment? No Formula?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
<phys...@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> wrote:
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote ...
>
>> If you want to accelerate a fast moving mass, the needed force is not
>> given by f =m*a with m beeing the mass at rest.
>> This has been measured many times.
>
>Nor is it given by f=m*a with m being the relativistic mass!
>
>While the arguing continues over which one we should call the mass (some
>say it should be E/c^2 where E is the total energy, other say it should it
>should be E_o/c^2, where E_o is the rest energy), this is instead an
>argument about the physics.
>
>The relativistic mass (E/c^2) is NOT a genuine relativistic generalization
>of the Newtonian mass (E_o/c^2). There is no m for which f=m*a. In the
>first place, f and a are not in general in the same direction, and m is
>larger when f is parallel to a than when f is perpendicular to a.
>
>This is discussed at great length in an article by Lev Okun that appeared
>in the June 1989 edition of Physics Today: "On the Concept of Mass".
Yeah I know. For f=m*a to be right, m must be a tensor. I really
don愒 like the concept of relativistic mass, but it愀 the easiest way
to show that Newton is not the whole truth.
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Jan C. Bernauer
<MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote:
>
>"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
>news:rilafu8ul7bpb8c2s...@4ax.com...
>> Positive charged electrons are called positrons.
>
>what are protons made of?
>
>
>> No, protons have the exact same charge as electrons, just with another
>> sign.
>
><LOL>
>signs?
>there are no REAL signs.
>all are above 0
>higher and lowers above 0
>there is no "negative" reality.
There a methods of measuring absolut charge.
>
>> Right, it was the answer of your question how I could dare to state
>> that the grounded cooper plate has no field around it.
>
>I asked you what the field would read when the copper is in a grounded
>state..
>you told me 0
>that is not a field.
>that is 0
a) I said that the first multipole moment (or what it is in english)
is zero. That愀 an approximation for large distances. (like, 10 cm or
such)
b) A zero field is no field?
>
>> Ok, take a bottle.
>> There a exactly 0 antiuran-atoms it it.
>> See, 0, everywhere.
>
>No,
So there are antiuran-atoms in it?
>see 0 nowhere.
>and not in the bottle for somehting took it's place
>probably air.
>and never 0 of it.
>
>you are a 0
>ZERO.
>
----
Jan C. Bernauer
animatedshane
> On 29 May 2002 13:11:01 -0700, animat...@yahoo.com (animatedshane)
> wrote:
>
> >animat...@yahoo.com (animatedshane) wrote in message news:<f49a0633.02051...@posting.google.com>...
> >> "Spaceman" <MI...@realspaceman.common> wrote in message news:<ue4kguc...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> > "Warren Brown" <war...@zapo.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:absaap$t3v$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> >> > > Maybe, maybe not but the fact of the matter is at speeds approaching the
> >> > > speed of light newtonian mechanics becomes a very poor estimate, and that
> >> > > cannot be argued with! That's all I was saying.
> >> >
> >> > Actually Warren,
> >> > It can be argued with,
> >> > Not once have they ever got anything solid coming close
> >> > to such speed and doing the measurements.
> >> >
> >> > The truth is they only have non- solids moving fast so far.
> >> > and as far as I'm concerned
> >> > an electron does not model a StarShip at all.
> >> > NOT EVEN CLOSE.
> >> >
> >> > Keep believing in the wall.
> >> > It's your wall,
> >> > not mine,
> >> > Lightspeed does no such things to solids.
> >> > and not one friggen experminet has proven such,
> >> > believe the parrots or look around.
> >> > The truth can show you NOTHING solid has been
> >> > accelerated to such speeds to actually do a REAL experiment
> >> > with solids moving at high speeds.
> >> >
> >> > That is the truth,
> >> > Ignore it like physicists all you want.
> >> > I'm glad NASA doesn't.
> >> Actually it's a mathematical wall. With the velocity of light speed,
> >> the objects mass becomes infinite and thus carries everything behind
> >> in. Because with infinite mass this object would have infinite
> >> gravity. All this talk about solids should be directed at whether or
> >> not this object has mass.
> >
> >
> >Another interesting note is that some experiments have shown that
> >light can be bent with gravitational fields. Thus indicating light has
> >mass.
>
>
> ----
> Jan C. Bernauer
So what do you propose would cause light to bent? Gravitational forces
only affect mass as I'm aware of!
Jan C. Bernauer
wrote:
For example: The light goes a straight line, but the space is bend?
----
Jan C. Bernauer
Spaceman
> There a methods of measuring absolut charge.
There is?
So why don't you tell us it to
find the absolute charge of a grounded piece of copper.
What is the absolute charge?
Still won't tell me huh?
Spaceman
"Jan C. Bernauer" <taggedfo...@web.de> wrote in message
news:fdtbfughih63abqqu...@4ax.com...
>
> Yeah I know. For f=m*a to be right, m must be a tensor. I really
> don愒 like the concept of relativistic mass, but it愀 the easiest way
> to show that Newton is not the whole truth.
That is such bologna it's sad.
f grows with a
a grows with f
m remains the same.
if m grows, you gained mass from gathering it in the path.
m does not grow from motion alone.
you are a fool.
you have no clue how to use the math even it seems.
Spaceman
"animatedshane" <animat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f49a0633.02053...@posting.google.com...
> So what do you propose would cause light to bent? Gravitational forces
> only affect mass as I'm aware of!
Gravitational force is merely static electricity.
magnetic force is when those electrons find a pattern of motion spin
and settle into it because of so many electrons spinning in sych
conservation causes magnetism..
BTW:static bends light great!
TV screens are proof.
<G>
the photon is the electrons wave event.
it is a part of the mass of the electron waving.
Spaceman
> Experiments like the one you snipped clearly show that Newton breaks down
> at high speeds.
Expermients with what?
you are lost.
You never ever tried testing large KE solids past 8,000 miles per hour yet.
Go away!
Spaceman
> I know what I´m talking about.
> The perhaps most fundamental law in physics.
> The only one lost is you.
Mass gaining with speed alone is not a fundemental law.
In fact it does not happen so..
It's a mental law.
and you are the mental one that believes it.
> Read my messages again. That part about an object of 1 kg mass, 1
> m/s^2 acceleration and needed force when v=0 and 1000000 km/s?
Ok,
lets take your numbers now and show you what a fool you are.
1 kg mass with v = 0
mass = 1kg
1 kg mass with speed of any friggen number you choose.
is still only 1 kg mass and only force
and kinetic enegy changes.
You are a friggen fool or troll.
The mass remains the same.
the force and KE grows with speed.
Think mass gains all you want.
you are the lost one here.
lost in time and now lost in space too.
The mass remains the same
it's force of motion is raised.
You are an idiot.
Spaceman
> For example: The light goes a straight line, but the space is bend?
<ROFLOL>
there we go again,
a nothingess being bent and causing things.
too funny!
<LOL>