TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT
Pentcho Valev
> mlut...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
> > independent
> > of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
>
> Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
> inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
> INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
> the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
> elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
> the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1174140194....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Exercise for the reader:
Which ignored differences (by Pentcho Valev) of the following list
are responsible for the above?
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion
Dirk Vdm
G. L. Bradford
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174140194....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
It has nothing to do with the independence of c, nor the timing of light's
propagations. To the propagation of light no thing is ever moving, which
fact reduces to propagation being instantaneous with causing event. From
that point on the light mirrors in itself only the now subjective space-time
coordinate point of propagation which has nothing whatsoever to do with the
source of propagation. You can't seem to picture that fact.
Nor can you picture the fact that a source in motion may may move a tiny
pico-meter in space from propagation of light to propagation of light
expanding space between propagations of light on that end of the deal, which
on the other and receiving end will appear to be a differentiation in both
space and time, though it be only a differentiation in space on the
propagating end, the timing being perfectly sequenced tick to tick, to tick
of the clock, with no internally local connection to be had to change
regarding non-local space.
Light doesn't give a damn about the source. Coordinate space-time wise, it
is all about the causing event point of propagation. And coordinate
space-time wise, it will be all about that absolutely fixed-frozen point in
coordinate space-time forever.
'Instantaneous with cause' ('simultaneous with cause'), is faster than
"infinite velocity." "Finite constants," for the universal constants such as
c, is a poor term of use because "finite" is itself "relative." You talk
about the [speed] of light when c is actually all about light-time
space-time [distance] from any coordinate space-time POINT OF PROPAGATION .
. . [from which "coordinate system" provided] all relative velocities will
be calculated. When it comes to there being any motion involved, the divided
twosome of objective observer and [objective source of light's propagation /
subjective point of propagation] becomes a divided triangular tri-state of
observer, subjective point of propagation, and objective source of light's
propagation with all motion and continuity of motion. The subjective points
of propagation is what the objective sources of light's propagation in space
and time will always drop off and leave distantly behind them in space and
time for the observer to measure light-time space-time to.
Though the observer should deal in three points in the triangle of the
coordinate system, he actually need not deal in three clocks for the three
points. He can curve the traveler's actuality of [there and now] clock time
into his own [here and now] clock time, deliberately merging those two
clocks into only one, ASSUMING exactly the same clock time (a version of
"quantum entanglement" you might say) regarding a twin objectivity versus
the subjective light-time space-time point of propagation which is the point
on the opposite side of what is now to be a circle that will always be the
observed (the one and only traveler that ever will be under observation). A
positional reading by the observer of a light second's distance from the
observer becomes a second's distance and difference between point of
propagation and whatever the source of light's propagation. A positional
reading by the observer for a galaxy a billion light years in distance from
the observer becomes a billion years in distance and difference between
subjective light-time space-time [there-then] point of propagation and the
objective source of light's propagation, the now real-time [there-now]
galaxy.
For Special Relativity to become truly realized concerning physics, the
difference between the at rest inertial frame observer and the observed
traveler has to be MADE TO BECOME the difference between the real traveler
and the observed traveler -- any distant traveling object -- as well. If the
physicist is going to quantum entangle the two, as he has been PARTIALLY
doing all this time, then he is going to have to go all the way in curving
the real traveler, and traveler's clock, to his own frame and clock in order
to truly realize what he is observing at any [light-time space-time]
distance away from himself.
---------------
Nicely accurate looks at the place of '1/2' regarding a fundamental
"Universe" base of two ('2' ('0' and '1')):
"The universe is (always) wider than our view of it." -- Henry David
Thoreau (parenthetic mine.)
"Communication across the revolutionary divide is inevitably partial." --
Thomas S. Kuhn.
---------------
GLB
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
> in accordance with both
> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
> and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
a rather long and detailed derivation of this back in 1998:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3220d2
> [...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
he published GR in 1915.
Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
Tom Roberts
karand...@yahoo.com
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> >> Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
> >> inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. [...]
>
> > So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
> > in accordance with both
> > frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
> > and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
>
> Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
> mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
> only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
>
> > [...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
>
> You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
> APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
> physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
> he published GR in 1915.
>
> Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
> relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
> write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
> arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
> wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
> convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
>
> Tom Roberts
Pancho will never grow, he's already to old and sick for that. Autism
at such an advanced age is utterly and completely incurable. Luckily
for us, his autism will be soon be replaced by Alzheimer and he'll
stop torturing the keyboard.
Pentcho Valev
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> >> Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
> >> inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. [...]
> >
> > So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
> > in accordance with both
> > frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
> > and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
>
> Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
> mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
> only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
> a rather long and detailed derivation of this back in 1998:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3220d2
>
>
> > [...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
>
> You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
> APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
> physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
> he published GR in 1915.
But Roberts YOU keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant
FOR THE ACCELERATED OBSERVER, not me. Equivalently, also for the
observer at the bottom of the tower receiving light from the top the
speed of light is not constant (it is slightly greater than c,
right?). And this latter observer measures a frequency shift
f'=f(1+V/c^2)
according to all textbooks. Then the observer remembers Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and says: "What a genius! In 1911 he
predicted everything!". And now you Roberts say that Einstein's 1911
equation "is at best an APPROXIMATION" and that later "Einstein got it
right". Panic, Roberts?
Pentcho Valev
Eric Gisse
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip idiocy]
Time to start posting the Pentcho Valev FAQ once again.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1174287164.2...@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Pentcho Valev is a sub-imbecile who systematically and persistently
ignores the differences between
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>>> Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
>>> inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. [...]
>>
>> So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
>> in accordance with both
>> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>> and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
>
>Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
>mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
>only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
>a rather long and detailed derivation of this back in 1998:
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3220d2
'c' is a universal constant.
It also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. 'Why?'..... nobody has
bothered to investigate since Einstein derailed physics.
Nobody has measured OWLS ...let alone OWLS from a moving source. ..so you are
making incorrect claims about the 'speed of light'.
TWLS is dead constant because the BaTh says it ought to be.
Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
EM FoR?
.
>> [...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
>
>You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
>APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
>physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
>he published GR in 1915.
>
>
>Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
>relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
>write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
>arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
>wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
>convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
Most of the arrogance here comes from the relativist ratpack. What does that
say?
>
>
>Tom Roberts
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
Eric Gisse
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20:35 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> >>> Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
> >>> inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. [...]
>
> >> So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
> >> in accordance with both
> >> frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
> >> and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
>
> >Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
> >mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
> >only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
> >a rather long and detailed derivation of this back in 1998:
It has been awhile...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
-5 points.
>
> 'c' is a universal constant.
>
> It also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. 'Why?'..... nobody has
> bothered to investigate since Einstein derailed physics.
#2, #5, #18 - A one-sentence triple slam! 11 points.
>
> Nobody has measured OWLS ...let alone OWLS from a moving source. ..so you are
> making incorrect claims about the 'speed of light'.
#2, #5 - A common theme for Ralph. 17 points.
>
> TWLS is dead constant because the BaTh says it ought to be.
I think #4 applies but I lack the motivation to rationalize it. Still
17 points.
>
> Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
#2, #5 - Again. Imagine that. 23 points.
>
> How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
> ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
> EM FoR?
#14 - What the fuck is an EM FoR? I ask not because I don't know what
a frame of reference is, but because I don't know what your personal
definition is today. 33 points
> .
>
> >> [...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
>
> >You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
> >APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
> >physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
> >he published GR in 1915.
>
> >Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
> >relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
> >write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
> >arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
> >wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
> >convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
>
> Most of the arrogance here comes from the relativist ratpack. What does that
> say?
#18 - Again. 43 points.
>
>
>
> >Tom Roberts
>
> "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
> --Jonathan Swift.
1 point because that sig is so hypocritical. I sometimes make up my
own rules.
44 points. Not bad, Ralph.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jow...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 20 Mar 2007 02:33:08 -0700
<1174383188.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
t = d/v
t1 = d/(c+v)
t2 = d/(c-v)
t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
Granted, Henry may *not* be concluding this, and either simply stating
it or putting something in BaTh that is not in my strawman theory,
Newtonian ballistic theory.
>
>>
>> Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
>
> #2, #5 - Again. Imagine that. 23 points.
Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
BaTh looks awfully complicated.
>
>>
>> How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
>> ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
>> EM FoR?
>
> #14 - What the fuck is an EM FoR? I ask not because I don't know what
> a frame of reference is, but because I don't know what your personal
> definition is today. 33 points
How does one define a non-EM FoR anyway? We're surrounded by virtual
photons (almost all of chemistry depends on charges and bonds; the sole
exception might be things like the N14=>C14 conversion done high in our
atmosphere, and that's not quite chemistry :-) ).
>
>> .
>>
>> >> [...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
>>
>> >You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
>> >APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
>> >physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
>> >he published GR in 1915.
>>
>> >Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
>> >relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
>> >write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
>> >arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
>> >wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
>> >convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
>>
>> Most of the arrogance here comes from the relativist ratpack. What does that
>> say?
>
> #18 - Again. 43 points.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Tom Roberts
>>
>> "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
>> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
>> --Jonathan Swift.
>
> 1 point because that sig is so hypocritical. I sometimes make up my
> own rules.
>
> 44 points. Not bad, Ralph.
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.logic, Eric Gisse
><jow...@gmail.com>
> wrote
>on 20 Mar 2007 02:33:08 -0700
><1174383188.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>> On Mar 20, 1:10 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20:35 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> TWLS is dead constant because the BaTh says it ought to be.
>>
>> I think #4 applies but I lack the motivation to rationalize it. Still
>> 17 points.
>
>I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
>a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
>
>t = d/v
>t1 = d/(c+v)
>t2 = d/(c-v)
>t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
Ghost, you silly old bugger, you still can't get it into your head that there
is NO aether.
The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
in both directions.
SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
(NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
I would have thought this would be obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
>Granted, Henry may *not* be concluding this, and either simply stating
>it or putting something in BaTh that is not in my strawman theory,
>Newtonian ballistic theory.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
>>
>> #2, #5 - Again. Imagine that. 23 points.
>
>Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
>Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
>multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
>
>BaTh looks awfully complicated.
Hahahahohoho!
Hurse and Taylor got a Nobel for getting everything about HST1913+16 completely
wrong.
When do I get mine for correcting their mistakes?
>>> How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
>>> ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
>>> EM FoR?
>>
>> #14 - What the fuck is an EM FoR? I ask not because I don't know what
>> a frame of reference is, but because I don't know what your personal
>> definition is today. 33 points
>
>How does one define a non-EM FoR anyway? We're surrounded by virtual
>photons (almost all of chemistry depends on charges and bonds; the sole
>exception might be things like the N14=>C14 conversion done high in our
>atmosphere, and that's not quite chemistry :-) ).
Unlike common 'frames' EM frames tend to be local and limited in size.
EM frames exist to varying degrees everywhere except in Wilsonian nort-holes.
Any EM FoR, no matter how weak, will affect the speed of EM travelling through
it.
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:14:02 GMT
<eop003pj2ndamq066...@4ax.com>:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:05:33 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.logic, Eric Gisse
>><jow...@gmail.com>
>> wrote
>>on 20 Mar 2007 02:33:08 -0700
>><1174383188.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>> On Mar 20, 1:10 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20:35 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
>
>>>> TWLS is dead constant because the BaTh says it ought to be.
>>>
>>> I think #4 applies but I lack the motivation to rationalize it. Still
>>> 17 points.
>>
>>I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
>>a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
>>
>>t = d/v
>>t1 = d/(c+v)
>>t2 = d/(c-v)
>>t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
>
> Ghost, you silly old bugger, you still can't get it into your head that there
> is NO aether.
I'm just doing the math here. You do have a point, though.
>
> The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
> of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
> in both directions.
> SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
> (NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
So will any OWLS experiment unless the source is in fact moving.
The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
>
> I would have thought this would be obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
>
>>Granted, Henry may *not* be concluding this, and either simply stating
>>it or putting something in BaTh that is not in my strawman theory,
>>Newtonian ballistic theory.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
>>>
>>> #2, #5 - Again. Imagine that. 23 points.
>>
>>Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
>>Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
>>multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
>>
>>BaTh looks awfully complicated.
>
> Hahahahohoho!
>
> Hurse and Taylor got a Nobel for getting everything about HST1913+16 completely
> wrong.
> When do I get mine for correcting their mistakes?
Sweden will contact you at the appropriate time.
>
>>>> How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
>>>> ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
>>>> EM FoR?
>>>
>>> #14 - What the fuck is an EM FoR? I ask not because I don't know what
>>> a frame of reference is, but because I don't know what your personal
>>> definition is today. 33 points
>>
>>How does one define a non-EM FoR anyway? We're surrounded by virtual
>>photons (almost all of chemistry depends on charges and bonds; the sole
>>exception might be things like the N14=>C14 conversion done high in our
>>atmosphere, and that's not quite chemistry :-) ).
>
> Unlike common 'frames' EM frames tend to be local and limited in size.
> EM frames exist to varying degrees everywhere except in Wilsonian nort-holes.
> Any EM FoR, no matter how weak, will affect the speed of EM travelling through
> it.
>
>
>
> "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
> --Jonathan Swift.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:14:02 GMT
>>>I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
>>>a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
>>>
>>>t = d/v
>>>t1 = d/(c+v)
>>>t2 = d/(c-v)
>>>t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
>>
>> Ghost, you silly old bugger, you still can't get it into your head that there
>> is NO aether.
>
>I'm just doing the math here. You do have a point, though.
>
>>
>> The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
>> of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
>> in both directions.
>> SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
>> (NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
>
>So will any OWLS experiment unless the source is in fact moving.
There is a problem with checking to see if the TWO clocks are in synch.
That effectively makes it a TW experiment.
It can be done however if one either assumes the remote clock does not change
calibration when moved into position or uses Einstein's 'absolute' clock
synching method.
PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
>The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
The best way to do this is to compare OWLS from two differently moving sources.
>
>>>Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
>>>Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
>>>multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
>>>
>>>BaTh looks awfully complicated.
>>
>> Hahahahohoho!
>>
>> Hurse and Taylor got a Nobel for getting everything about HST1913+16 completely
>> wrong.
>> When do I get mine for correcting their mistakes?
>
>Sweden will contact you at the appropriate time.
I'm waiting for the phone to ring...
Eric Gisse
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:05:33 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
>
>
>
> <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> >In sci.logic, Eric Gisse
> > wrote
> >on 20 Mar 2007 02:33:08 -0700
You keep saying things like this, Ralph. But you never actually
develop the machinery to explain these 'predictions'.
Take a look at say Jackson or Griffiths or a subway wall to see how it
is done.
gdew...@gmail.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
<a2n103dqe4rhgoe9r...@4ax.com>:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:45:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
>><HW@>
>> wrote
>>on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:14:02 GMT
>
>>>>I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
>>>>a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
>>>>
>>>>t = d/v
>>>>t1 = d/(c+v)
>>>>t2 = d/(c-v)
>>>>t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
>>>
>>> Ghost, you silly old bugger, you still can't get it into your head that there
>>> is NO aether.
>>
>>I'm just doing the math here. You do have a point, though.
>>
>>>
>>> The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
>>> of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
>>> in both directions.
>>> SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
>>> (NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
>>
>>So will any OWLS experiment unless the source is in fact moving.
>
> There is a problem with checking to see if the TWO clocks are in synch.
No need to check. So long as they were synchronized to begin with from
the midpoint of the observation platform, and there are no gravitational
anomalies, they will stay synchronized.
>
> That effectively makes it a TW experiment.
>
> It can be done however if one either assumes the remote clock does not change
> calibration when moved into position or uses Einstein's 'absolute' clock
> synching method.
>
> PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
>
>>The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
>
> You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
> Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
So you're suggesting that a TWLS will show c but an OLWS might not?
You might have a point regarding resolution. If the
measured speed of an OWLS is c+v, then the TWLS will
measure (c^2-v^2)/c in straight nBaT (I don't know about
BaTh). If v is on the order of 10^-4 c, then v^2 is on
the order of 10^-8 c^2.
However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
A lot faster. :-)
>
> The best way to do this is to compare OWLS from two differently moving sources.
>
>>
>>>>Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
>>>>Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
>>>>multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
>>>>
>>>>BaTh looks awfully complicated.
>>>
>>> Hahahahohoho!
>>>
>>> Hurse and Taylor got a Nobel for getting everything about HST1913+16 completely
>>> wrong.
>>> When do I get mine for correcting their mistakes?
>>
>>Sweden will contact you at the appropriate time.
>
> I'm waiting for the phone to ring...
>
OK.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>>>> The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
>>>> of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
>>>> in both directions.
>>>> SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
>>>> (NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
>>>
>>>So will any OWLS experiment unless the source is in fact moving.
>>
>> There is a problem with checking to see if the TWO clocks are in synch.
>
>No need to check. So long as they were synchronized to begin with from
>the midpoint of the observation platform, and there are no gravitational
>anomalies, they will stay synchronized.
You are learning well Ghost.
>> That effectively makes it a TW experiment.
>>
>> It can be done however if one either assumes the remote clock does not change
>> calibration when moved into position or uses Einstein's 'absolute' clock
>> synching method.
>>
>> PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
>>
>>>The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
>>
>> You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
>> Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
>
>So you're suggesting that a TWLS will show c but an OLWS might not?
>
>You might have a point regarding resolution. If the
>measured speed of an OWLS is c+v, then the TWLS will
>measure (c^2-v^2)/c in straight nBaT (I don't know about
>BaTh). If v is on the order of 10^-4 c, then v^2 is on
>the order of 10^-8 c^2.
Ghost, why would you want to measure the TWLS from a moving source?
If you meant 'a moving mirror' then fair enough.
>However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
>A lot faster. :-)
And sometimes these particles 'spontaneously decay' and emit gamma particles,
eh, Ghost?
Why? Do they hit an air moleculae and stop before decaying.... or does the
apparatus itself constitute a local EM reference frame in which all EM travels
at or near c?
Henri Wilson
No, even the idiots don't want him...
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
<6o4603hvl2mlu5s5h...@4ax.com>:
Why not? Unless you want me to measure OWLS instead, which
is another, probably better, possibility. Of course we
won't see much, if other experiments are any indication;
the Large Hadron Collider in particular throws 7 TeV
into protons but can't make them move any faster than c
(and can't even achieve that), so therefore SR is the
most probable theory. (Put that baldly it sounds silly,
of course, but that's the gist of the issue; SR has a lot
going for it, and you're going to have to show quite a
bit more regarding BaTh than I for one have seen thus far.)
>
>>However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
>>A lot faster. :-)
>
> And sometimes these particles 'spontaneously decay' and emit gamma particles,
> eh, Ghost?
Depends on the particles.
> Why? Do they hit an air moleculae and stop before decaying.... or does the
> apparatus itself constitute a local EM reference frame in which all EM travels
> at or near c?
The particles are moving at high speed with respect to the apparatus.
However, it is possible that the magnetic "booster field" is generating
another "local EM reference frame", assuming that concept makes any
sense at all. (It does have to move near lightspeed so as to boost the
particles, if the particles are charged, of course.)
AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
>
>
>
>
> "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
> --Jonathan Swift.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:44:33 GMT
><6o4603hvl2mlu5s5h...@4ax.com>:
>>>>
>>>No need to check. So long as they were synchronized to begin with from
>>>the midpoint of the observation platform, and there are no gravitational
>>>anomalies, they will stay synchronized.
>>
>> You are learning well Ghost.
>>
>>>>
>>>> PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
>>>>
>>>>>The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
>>>>
>>>> You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
>>>> Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
>>>
>>>So you're suggesting that a TWLS will show c but an OLWS might not?
>>>
>>>You might have a point regarding resolution. If the
>>>measured speed of an OWLS is c+v, then the TWLS will
>>>measure (c^2-v^2)/c in straight nBaT (I don't know about
>>>BaTh). If v is on the order of 10^-4 c, then v^2 is on
>>>the order of 10^-8 c^2.
>>
>> Ghost, why would you want to measure the TWLS from a moving source?
>> If you meant 'a moving mirror' then fair enough.
>
>Why not? Unless you want me to measure OWLS instead, which
>is another, probably better, possibility. Of course we
>won't see much, if other experiments are any indication;
>the Large Hadron Collider in particular throws 7 TeV
>into protons but can't make them move any faster than c
>(and can't even achieve that), so therefore SR is the
>most probable theory. (Put that baldly it sounds silly,
>of course, but that's the gist of the issue; SR has a lot
>going for it, and you're going to have to show quite a
>bit more regarding BaTh than I for one have seen thus far.)
The BaTh says charges cannot be accelerated to greater than c on purely enegry
grounds. ...and SR has nothing going for it....
>>>However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
>>>A lot faster. :-)
>>
>> And sometimes these particles 'spontaneously decay' and emit gamma particles,
>> eh, Ghost?
>
>Depends on the particles.
>
>> Why? Do they hit an air moleculae and stop before decaying.... or does the
>> apparatus itself constitute a local EM reference frame in which all EM travels
>> at or near c?
>
>The particles are moving at high speed with respect to the apparatus.
>However, it is possible that the magnetic "booster field" is generating
>another "local EM reference frame", assuming that concept makes any
>sense at all. (It does have to move near lightspeed so as to boost the
>particles, if the particles are charged, of course.)
>
>AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
No man made vacumm even approaches conditions below the Wilson density
threshold.
Even fields start to become fragmented there.
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
<vtp6031vgoh6ctr1k...@4ax.com>:
Ah. So the rest of that 7 TeV goes precisely...where?
>
>>>>However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
>>>>A lot faster. :-)
>>>
>>> And sometimes these particles 'spontaneously decay' and emit gamma particles,
>>> eh, Ghost?
>>
>>Depends on the particles.
>>
>>> Why? Do they hit an air moleculae and stop before decaying.... or does the
>>> apparatus itself constitute a local EM reference frame in which all EM travels
>>> at or near c?
>>
>>The particles are moving at high speed with respect to the apparatus.
>>However, it is possible that the magnetic "booster field" is generating
>>another "local EM reference frame", assuming that concept makes any
>>sense at all. (It does have to move near lightspeed so as to boost the
>>particles, if the particles are charged, of course.)
>>
>>AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
>
> No man made vacumm even approaches conditions below the Wilson density
> threshold.
> Even fields start to become fragmented there.
Ah, I see. And what is this threshold? How many atoms per cubic meter?
>
>
>
> "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
> --Jonathan Swift.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
GNU and improved.
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
Robert Clark
Note: putting a blank subject line in your response forces Google
Groups to display that thread on the opening page for the group with a
blank subject, thus making it impossible for someone looking for that
thread to find it.
Bob Clark
John Jones
>
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:41:45 GMT
><vtp6031vgoh6ctr1k...@4ax.com>:
>>>Why not? Unless you want me to measure OWLS instead, which
>>>is another, probably better, possibility. Of course we
>>>won't see much, if other experiments are any indication;
>>>the Large Hadron Collider in particular throws 7 TeV
>>>into protons but can't make them move any faster than c
>>>(and can't even achieve that), so therefore SR is the
>>>most probable theory. (Put that baldly it sounds silly,
>>>of course, but that's the gist of the issue; SR has a lot
>>>going for it, and you're going to have to show quite a
>>>bit more regarding BaTh than I for one have seen thus far.)
>>
>> The BaTh says charges cannot be accelerated to greater than c on purely enegry
>> grounds. ...and SR has nothing going for it....
>
>Ah. So the rest of that 7 TeV goes precisely...where?
well I should have explained in more detail.
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because a reverse
field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied field.
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
>>>
>>>AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
>>
>> No man made vacumm even approaches conditions below the Wilson density
>> threshold.
>> Even fields start to become fragmented there.
>
>Ah, I see. And what is this threshold? How many atoms per cubic meter?
It's not so much the 'atoms' as the fields that exists there.
My theory says that fields are kind of 'quantized' and cannot be continually
weakened according to the inverse square law. A point is reached where they
fragment and 'true emptiness' (Wilsonian Nort-holes)
temporarily appears in their place.
Packages of light travel ballistically through nort-holes...and partly destroy
them as they goes...Everywhere else, light is affected to some extent by the
strength of local EM FoRs and their refractive index.
Come on Ghost! You have to admit its a good theory....
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
<ro4e035196ra9o789...@4ax.com>:
Are superluminal muons routinely traveling through the atmosphere?
>
> Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
> thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
>>>
>>> No man made vacumm even approaches conditions below the Wilson density
>>> threshold.
>>> Even fields start to become fragmented there.
>>
>>Ah, I see. And what is this threshold? How many atoms per cubic meter?
>
> It's not so much the 'atoms' as the fields that exists there.
>
> My theory says that fields are kind of 'quantized' and cannot be continually
> weakened according to the inverse square law. A point is reached where they
> fragment and 'true emptiness' (Wilsonian Nort-holes)
> temporarily appears in their place.
>
> Packages of light travel ballistically through nort-holes...and partly destroy
> them as they goes...Everywhere else, light is affected to some extent by the
> strength of local EM FoRs and their refractive index.
>
> Come on Ghost! You have to admit its a good theory....
>
Without predictions it's a ridiculous theory. Might as
well have angels pushing the planets around.
There's at least one individual who is of the opinion
that SR is an aether theory. I for one cannot address
that directly but I do know the math for SR, and the math
doesn't really care whether SR requires an aether or not;
it merely has to predict things correctly and consistently
with peer-reviewed experiments.
So far, from what I've seen, your BaTh has in fact
correctly predicted some light curves. I have no idea
what BaTh predicts regarding spectral analysis, nor is
it clear how the BaTh handles such things as a 7 TeV proton.
The SR predictions are rather clear in that area, although
I've not verified them personally.
>
> "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
> --Jonathan Swift.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
John Jones
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
I haven't actually seen any ..but we know they are there because some of them
reach the ground.
>
>>
>> Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
>> thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
>>>>
>>>> No man made vacumm even approaches conditions below the Wilson density
>>>> threshold.
>>>> Even fields start to become fragmented there.
>>>
>>>Ah, I see. And what is this threshold? How many atoms per cubic meter?
>>
>> It's not so much the 'atoms' as the fields that exists there.
>>
>> My theory says that fields are kind of 'quantized' and cannot be continually
>> weakened according to the inverse square law. A point is reached where they
>> fragment and 'true emptiness' (Wilsonian Nort-holes)
>> temporarily appears in their place.
>>
>> Packages of light travel ballistically through nort-holes...and partly destroy
>> them as they goes...Everywhere else, light is affected to some extent by the
>> strength of local EM FoRs and their refractive index.
>>
>> Come on Ghost! You have to admit its a good theory....
>>
>
>Without predictions it's a ridiculous theory. Might as
>well have angels pushing the planets around.
...well most relativists seem to believe in fairies so why not?
>There's at least one individual who is of the opinion
>that SR is an aether theory. I for one cannot address
>that directly but I do know the math for SR, and the math
>doesn't really care whether SR requires an aether or not;
>it merely has to predict things correctly and consistently
>with peer-reviewed experiments.
..and no direct experiment has confirmed the second postulate.
>So far, from what I've seen, your BaTh has in fact
>correctly predicted some light curves.
It certainly has...lots of them
>I have no idea
>what BaTh predicts regarding spectral analysis, nor is
>it clear how the BaTh handles such things as a 7 TeV proton.
It probably doesn't say anything in particular since it deals essentially with
the way light travels through a perfect vacuum.
>The SR predictions are rather clear in that area, although
>I've not verified them personally.
Strange things happen inside accelerators ..with their local EM FoRs.
Tom Roberts
> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
What makes muons so special? After all, nobody has ever OBSERVED
anything moving significantly faster than c. INCLUDING MUONS. INCLUDING
PRODUCTS OF "NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS".
> Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
> thing else.
That is one of the very few true statements you have made.
> I haven't actually seen any ..but we know they are there because some of them
> reach the ground.
I assume you mean cosmic-ray muons generated in the upper atmosphere.
When they reach the ground, they are not traveling significantly faster
than c. Typical detectors have a resolution in speed of 20% to 0.1% or
so. And when we perform similar collisions in the lab, the resulting
pions and muons are definitely traveling with speed no greater than c
(again with resolutions between 20% and 0.1% or so).
Like so many others around here, you should actually LEARN something
about the subject before attempting to write about it. You spew an
incredible amount of nonsense to the net, and will NEVER learn anything
when you waste so much time attempting to discuss things you so clearly
know nothing about.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
> Like so many others around here, you should actually LEARN something
> about the subject before attempting to write about it. You spew an
> incredible amount of nonsense to the net, and will NEVER learn anything
> when you waste so much time attempting to discuss things you so clearly
> know nothing about.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Roberts Roberts instead of insulting people just explain why you claim
Einstein's 1911 euation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is "at best an APPROXIMATION,
and is applicable only to a very limited class of physical
situations". Describe those physical situations Roberts. For instance,
the equation shows how the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V but if you apply the equivalence principle
you will find that the equation becomes c'=c+v, where v is the
relative speed of the (accelerated) light source and the (accelerated)
observer, in the absence of a gravitational field. True, both the
source and the observer are accelerated and you can start singing your
old song entitled "In non-inertial systems the speed of light may not
be constant", but be honest Roberts and tell me:
Does the equation c'=c+v which is identical to that predicted by the
emission theory sometimes make you look for sand so that you could
stick your head and expose other parts of your body? Just be honest
Roberts.
Pentcho Valev
John Jones
Androcles
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1174920947.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Humpty Roberts at his most honest, figures out time zones:
| Imagine a train leaving one city at 12:00 and arriving in a city 60
| miles to its west at 12:01. Do you really think that train traveled
| 3,600 miles per hour? Of course not! This example used two _different_
| coordinate systems for "time", the two timezones of those two cities. To
| obtain the speed you _must_ use a single coordinate system; then you'll
| realize it traveled just under 60 miles per hour. - Humpty Roberts.
Humpty Roberts in Wonderland:-
| Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes
`I don't know what you mean by "observations",' Alice said.
Humpty Roberts smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
you.
I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' <shrug>
`But "observations" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice
objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Roberts said, in rather a scornful tone,
<shrug>,
`it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' <shrug>
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many
different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Roberts, `which is to be master -- that's
all.' <shrug>
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Roberts
began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're
the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs --
however,
I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
<shrug>
"And you never responded to how a 2-d surface in a flat 4-d spacetime can
have nonzero curvature, and why that shows that the curvature of such
2-d surfaces is useless in "describing" the geometry of the 4-d
manifold...." he droned on.
"If you say that the curvature of 2-d surfaces is useless in
"describing" the geometry of the 4-d manifold....I am willing to agree
with you. But I just wanted you people to help me visualize the
intrinsic curvature of 3-d Schw. space. I was told that the Gaussian
curvature of certain 2-d surfaces will represent the intrinsic
curvature of 3-d Schw. space. When I wanted these 2-d surfaces to be
identified, Jan PB had given some interesting suggestions. But now you
say it is *useless*....." said Alice.
"_SOME_ 2-d surfaces can be useful in describing the geometry of 4-d
spacetime, in particular those spanned by a 2-d vector space of
geodesics. But you were discussing 2-d surfaces defined by coordinates,
and _those_ are useless because coordinates are completely arbitrary,
and introducing that arbitrariness destroys their usefulness" replied Humpty
Roberts.
"That means the notion of intrinsic curvature of space is either too
complex that it cannot be visualized or it is just invalid." exclaimed
Alice.
"No. But in many cases using a ball of dust particles is a better
visualization tool than 2-d surfaces.", said Humpty Roberts, teetering
on his wall.
"Mathematically it is good enough to state that in Riemannian geometry
the Riemann tensor is non-zero. Where is the necessity of associating
it with a cooked up fictitious term 'curvature of space'? " asked Alice,
thinking of the cooked up egg she had for breakfast.
"Mathematicians and physicists are human. We share the common desire to
communicate with each other easily, accurately, and concisely -- that's
why technical vocabularies were invented." said Humpty Roberts scornfully
and pretending he is human by saying "we".
Alice pondered this for moment, then asked "Was it required to fool and
mislead the 'layman'?"
"Your problem, not mine", said Humpty Roberts, then realizing his
Freudian slip, he was pretending to be human, added "(ours).
But this technical vocabulary is not secret or unfathomable, it just
takes _STUDY_. <shrug>"
Alice then went back to say "The term *curvature* basically applies to
the bending of curves and 2-d surfaces."
Ho ho, thought Humpty Roberts, "Not in differential geometry or GR.
The term "curvature" was borrowed by analogy with 2-d surfaces, and
has come to mean the Riemann curvature tensor. That is, a manifold of
_any_ dimension with nonzero Riemann tensor is said to be curved."
and he shrugged like this :- "<shrug>"
Alice asked "Why *said* to be curved when it is actually not curved?"
Humpty Roberts let out a great sigh.
" <sigh>", he said.
"The nuances of English. I was discussing the usage of words and
not the concepts they represent."
-- Tom Humpty Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
news:ZDmYf.51582$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com
The end.
With thanks to Lewis Carroll.
The reader should take careful note here.
Humpty Roberts is not discussing the concepts words represent, he is
discussing the meaning of words. The rest of us use a dictionary.
John Jones
Paul B. Andersen
>
> A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
> if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
In the _real_ world, you cannot accelerate anything to c relative
to anything because it takes infinite energy to do so.
> A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because a reverse
> field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied field.
Nonsense.
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
> Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
> thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
In jets from active galaxies, matter can move at speeds quite close to c.
In accretion rings around black holes, matter can move close to c.
The universe is a violent place, with lots of matter moving at extreme speed.
Why the hell are you claiming all this nonsense, Henri?
Paul
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > independent
John Jones
John Jones
John Jones
John Jones
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:eu9e0m$1s44$1...@news01.tp.hist.no...
Because there's always someone who replies ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>> A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
>> if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
>
>Nonsense.
>In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
>for the speed of a rocket.
>Or would you like to prove otherwise?
The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very complicated
(as the late Bilge once explained).
However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
you derive )
>In the _real_ world, you cannot accelerate anything to c relative
>to anything because it takes infinite energy to do so.
Plenty of things go faster than c due to particle collisions. Muons for
instance.
>> A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because a reverse
>> field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied field.
>
>Nonsense.
>When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
>difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
>This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
>The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
>even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
so what?
>This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>the applied field at high speeds.
Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>
>Nonsense.
>High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
>Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
>(Storage ring - go figure.)
The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
quickly as they might otherwise do.
>> Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
>> thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
>
>In jets from active galaxies, matter can move at speeds quite close to c.
That's a willusion....but some things can move close to c if you like.
>In accretion rings around black holes, matter can move close to c.
>The universe is a violent place, with lots of matter moving at extreme speed.
Nothing wrong with that. A small proportion of things would be expected to move
close to c.
>
>Why the hell are you claiming all this nonsense, Henri?
Becasue Maxwell did the same with molecular velocities in a gas...look up
'statistical mechanics'....
>Paul
PS: Has the ice thawed yet?
PD
Serious bot infection.
Suggest lancing the boil with a hot icepick over a 2-gallon bucket and
keeping that post elevated until the swelling goes down.
PD
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>
>What makes muons so special? After all, nobody has ever OBSERVED
>anything moving significantly faster than c. INCLUDING MUONS. INCLUDING
>PRODUCTS OF "NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS".
Muons are often detected traveling at speeds >c in coincidence counters but the
recordings are rejected as spurious because Einstein and his followers said it
cannot happen.
Besides, synchronising the clocks of two scintillarors in the lab so they can
measure true OW speeds of muons is well nigh impossible.
>> Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
>> thing else.
>
>That is one of the very few true statements you have made.
They are all true. ..but you never recognize the fact.
>> I haven't actually seen any ..but we know they are there because some of them
>> reach the ground.
>
>I assume you mean cosmic-ray muons generated in the upper atmosphere.
>When they reach the ground, they are not traveling significantly faster
>than c.
That is one of the very few true statements you have made.
Most are slowed to <c in the lower layers of the atmosphere (where
incidentally, most are formed)
>Typical detectors have a resolution in speed of 20% to 0.1% or
>so. And when we perform similar collisions in the lab, the resulting
>pions and muons are definitely traveling with speed no greater than c
>(again with resolutions between 20% and 0.1% or so).
Well it IS obviously possible to calibrate a pair of detectors to compare OW
speeds of different particles. For instance a gamma ray produced from a source
at rest with the detectors can be assumed to be traveling at c across the gap
between them, even though it might slow down a little passing through the first
one. It should be possible to detect a speed of say 2c with such a device, with
a spacing of even 5 metres.
But there are obvious problems. What proof is there that other factors are not
influencing the speed of the particle before it enters the test area? How are
genuine >c coincidences distinguished from spurious counts?
They aren't. They are all rejected. Because Einstein said they can't happen.
>Like so many others around here, you should actually LEARN something
>about the subject before attempting to write about it. You spew an
>incredible amount of nonsense to the net, and will NEVER learn anything
>when you waste so much time attempting to discuss things you so clearly
>know nothing about.
Oh shut up you pompous prat. The BaTh can match just about any light curve. Why
don't you open your eyes?
You didn't even know that the hot dog stand moves in a circle.
You didn't even know that centrifugal forces have been around for centuries in
inertial frames.
>Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> Roberts Roberts instead of insulting people
You do all the insulting yourself; I merely point it out.
> explain why you claim
> Einstein's 1911 euation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is "at best an APPROXIMATION,
> and is applicable only to a very limited class of physical
> situations".
Because it is not contained in GR -- Einstein wrote it while
trailblazing the path from SR to GR. I see I over-spoke, and realize now
that it is not any approximation, and is not valid for any physical
situation.
I had in mind the possibility of this: applicable only to
weak-field situations (so that it makes sense to discuss V,
the Newtonian gravitational potential), only for measurements
of the speed of light over a path for which the gravitational
effect on clock rate is important, and only for a path
throughout which the gravitational effect on rulers is
negligible. But I see now this doesn't work: if you use one
clock for a round-trip measurement, V is irrelevant; if you
use two clocks for a one-way measurement, and they are at
significantly different potentials, no reproducible
measurement is possible (the clocks will drift relative to
each other and cannot remain in synch).
Note also that your equation involved the approximation
1/sqrt(1-2x) ~ 1+x for x<<1.
> the equation shows how the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential V
Except that this does not happen -- a _LOCAL_ measurement of the speed
of light obtains the value c, independent of the gravitational potential
at which it was measured (small fields only, which vary negligibly over
the measurement path).
You keep attempting to make general-sounding statements, but many/most
of your claims are flat out wrong, and the remainder are only valid for
certain very special cases. And your bullying tone is totally
unwarranted. You REALLY need to learn about the subject you keep trying
to write about. In particular, Einstein made several mis-steps on the
path to GR; this was one of them.
Tom Roberts
PD
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>
> >> A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
> >> if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
>
> >Nonsense.
> >In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
> >for the speed of a rocket.
> >Or would you like to prove otherwise?
>
> The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
Uh, no. If this were true, then the maximum energy of a proton would
be a bit under 1 GeV. This would of course would come as a surprise to
the folks at Fermilab.
[Rest of claptrap following from this claptrap snipped]
PD
Henri Wilson
Poor boy.
Why would he think KE should be included in 'intrinsic energy' when it is frame
dependent.
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:gaig039ua5r90ggkt...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
>>> if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>>In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
>>for the speed of a rocket.
>>Or would you like to prove otherwise?
>
> The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
No, unless the rocket burns itself to the last atom, and
one atom is not a rocket.
The maximum available energy is 1/2mv^2.
You have know Newton's third law, there is a lot of
energy going up the exhaust pipe.
> When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
> jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
> So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
Correct, but the acceleration is the wrong way.
So we have a conundrum for the Tusseladd, what is the ideal
cone or pyramid or other shape of solid fuel that that we can
enclose in paper or card (consider that mass to be negligible
and burns away) that will minimise the velocity of the exhaust
and maximise the velocity of the apex of the cone?
Working backwards, we assume (for the fun of it) we have
a tetrahedron (or other shape) of 4 atoms or molecules, 3 of
which go in the reverse direction and one forward when they
separate. The penultimate step is this cluster of four resting
on a base of six, so 6 back and 4 forward, the one before
that has a base of ?... and so on.
Of course, all velocities are relative, there is no universal frame,
so the speed of the rocket relative to it's own exhaust is 2v.
So when we place our paper rocket on surface of infinite
mass, the first layer of spend fuel should have zero velocity
relative to the surface and the rocket cone of unburned
fuel above it will have momentum 2mv. Rockets do of
course accelerate, that's rocket science. :-)
Androcles
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message news:8ejg035lkrmf71fd2...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:08:46 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>>
>>What makes muons so special? After all, nobody has ever OBSERVED
>>anything moving significantly faster than c. INCLUDING MUONS. INCLUDING
>>PRODUCTS OF "NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS".
>
> Muons are often detected traveling at speeds >c in coincidence counters but the
> recordings are rejected as spurious because Einstein and his followers said it
> cannot happen.
> Besides, synchronising the clocks of two scintillarors in the lab so they can
> measure true OW speeds of muons is well nigh impossible.
>
>>> Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
>>> thing else.
>>
>>That is one of the very few true statements you have made.
>
> They are all true. ..but you never recognize the fact.
>
>>> I haven't actually seen any ..but we know they are there because some of them
>>> reach the ground.
>>
>>I assume you mean cosmic-ray muons generated in the upper atmosphere.
>>When they reach the ground, they are not traveling significantly faster
>>than c.
>
> That is one of the very few true statements you have made.
Oh, do come off it.
100,000 metres in 2.2 microseconds for the muon.
Same racetrack for the photon, same clock for the photon,
there is no comparison, the muon wins by 480 furlongs.
I'd call that "significantly" faster. Very significantly.
"When a true moron appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the other fuckheads are all in confederacy with him."
-- Muon Swift.
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:CDYNh.451$Q23...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> Roberts Roberts instead of insulting people
>
> You do all the insulting yourself; I merely point it out.
>
>
>> explain why you claim
>> Einstein's 1911 euation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is "at best an APPROXIMATION,
>> and is applicable only to a very limited class of physical
>> situations".
>
> Because it is not contained in GR
HAHAHA!
Hey Roberts! THIS is an insult.
You are a fucking hero worshipping moron, you stupid cunt.
The Ghost In The Machine
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote
on Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:08:46 GMT
<OtQNh.122$5e...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>:
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>
> What makes muons so special? After all, nobody has ever OBSERVED
> anything moving significantly faster than c. INCLUDING MUONS. INCLUDING
> PRODUCTS OF "NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS".
>
I'm not sure how one would measure the velocity of a muon directly, but
one might note that, AFAIK anyway, muons hitting the ground do so with
an approximate energy of 2 GeV. Estimates of the energy loss while
through the atmosphere are probably variable but 4 GeV is the value
I've seen coughed up in the past.
In a Newtonian theory, given the 2.2 microsecond half-life of a muon,
one would have to travel at about 75.8 c to make it through 50 km
of atmosphere without decaying. Since a muon's mass energy equivalent
is 105.7 MeV, the required Newtonian kinetic energy would have to be
about 300 GeV.
Something doesn't quite add up here. :-) However, in SR a 6 GeV muon
merely requires a 57 gamma factor, which isn't quite enough but is in
the ballpark.
>
>> Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
>> thing else.
>
> That is one of the very few true statements you have made.
>
>
>> I haven't actually seen any ..but we know they are there because some of them
>> reach the ground.
>
> I assume you mean cosmic-ray muons generated in the upper atmosphere.
> When they reach the ground, they are not traveling significantly faster
> than c. Typical detectors have a resolution in speed of 20% to 0.1% or
> so. And when we perform similar collisions in the lab, the resulting
> pions and muons are definitely traveling with speed no greater than c
> (again with resolutions between 20% and 0.1% or so).
>
Hm...sounds like someone's ahead of me. :-) Oh well. :-)
>
> Like so many others around here, you should actually LEARN something
> about the subject before attempting to write about it. You spew an
> incredible amount of nonsense to the net, and will NEVER learn anything
> when you waste so much time attempting to discuss things you so clearly
> know nothing about.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
Paul B. Andersen
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
>>> if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
>> Nonsense.
>> In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
>> for the speed of a rocket.
>> Or would you like to prove otherwise?
>
> The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
> When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
> jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
> So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
> Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very complicated
> (as the late Bilge once explained).
> However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
> provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
> be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
> you derive )
You are simply wrong.
Show the trivial proof, please.
>> In the _real_ world, you cannot accelerate anything to c relative
>> to anything because it takes infinite energy to do so.
>
> Plenty of things go faster than c due to particle collisions. Muons for
> instance.
>
>>> A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because a reverse
>>> field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied field.
>> Nonsense.
>> When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
>> difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
>> This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
>> The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
>> even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
>
> No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
> You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
> so what?
>
>> This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>> the applied field at high speeds.
>
> Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
> diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
Yawn.
>>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>> Nonsense.
>> High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
>> Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
>> (Storage ring - go figure.)
>
> The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
> quickly as they might otherwise do.
We were not talking about decay.
We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
Paul
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > independent
Tom Roberts
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:08:46 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>> What makes muons so special? After all, nobody has ever OBSERVED
>> anything moving significantly faster than c. INCLUDING MUONS. INCLUDING
>> PRODUCTS OF "NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS".
>
> Muons are often detected traveling at speeds >c in coincidence counters but the
> recordings are rejected as spurious because Einstein and his followers said it
> cannot happen.
How silly. There would be a Nobel Prize in such observations, IFF they
were definitive and reproducible. There have been numerous searches for
particles with speeds > c, all negative.
> Besides, synchronising the clocks of two scintillarors in the lab so they can
> measure true OW speeds of muons is well nigh impossible.
You clearly do not know how this is done. One measures the time between
pulses in two scintillators separated by a known distance. It is easy to
obtain resolutions of speed in the 1% - 20% range; with care better
resolutions are possible.
> Most are slowed to <c in the lower layers of the atmosphere (where
> incidentally, most are formed)
How? magic? Just because Henry Wilson wishes it to be true?
While charged particles do indeed lose energy when traveling through
matter, the amount of matter in the atmosphere is woefully inadequate to
significantly reduce the velocity of muons generated in the upper
atmosphere that propagate to experiments on earth.
Your random hallucinations to the contrary, we DO know a lot about this,
and there has been almost a century of experimental study. As long as
you remain willfully ignorant of the literature you will not understand
physics. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
John Jones
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:eub4cr$2ab4$1...@news01.tp.hist.no...
Speeds that exceed 300,000 km/sec:
http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
You never did understand the Earth goes around the Sun, did you?
Androcles
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:aW8Oh.3310$u03....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:08:46 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>>>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>>> What makes muons so special? After all, nobody has ever OBSERVED
>>> anything moving significantly faster than c. INCLUDING MUONS. INCLUDING
>>> PRODUCTS OF "NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS".
>>
>> Muons are often detected traveling at speeds >c in coincidence counters but the
>> recordings are rejected as spurious because Einstein and his followers said it
>> cannot happen.
>
> How silly. There would be a Nobel Prize in such observations, IFF they
> were definitive and reproducible. There have been numerous searches for
> particles with speeds > c, all negative.
Speeds that exceed 300,000 km/sec:
http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
I predict that the LHC will provide evidence of OBSERVATION of particles that exceed 300,000 km/sec in the INERTIAL FRAME OF REFERENCE of the other, because that is what it is designed for. <SHRUG>
Now give me my Nobel prize, jerk.
You never did understand the Earth goes around the Sun, did you, STOOOPID FUCKHEAD?
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > independent
John Jones
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>> A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
>>>> if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
>>> Nonsense.
>>> In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
>>> for the speed of a rocket.
>>> Or would you like to prove otherwise?
>>
>> The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
>> When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
>> jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
>> So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
>> Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very complicated
>> (as the late Bilge once explained).
>> However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
>> provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
>> be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
>> you derive )
>
>You are simply wrong.
>Show the trivial proof, please.
Hohohahaha!
You can't see the trivial proof....!!!!
>> No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
>> You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
>> so what?
>>
>>> This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>>> the applied field at high speeds.
>>
>> Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
>> diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
>
>Yawn.
To put it another way, when the speed of the charge approaches the maximum
speed at which the field can act, then clearly the field cannot achieve the
same acceleration of the charge as it did at low speeds.
>>>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>>>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>>> Nonsense.
>>> High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
>>> Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
>>> (Storage ring - go figure.)
>>
>> The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
>> quickly as they might otherwise do.
>
>We were not talking about decay.
You were about to.
>We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
That's OK. 'c' is impossible to achieve in an accelerator.
>Paul
Henri Wilson
wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:08:46 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>>>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>>> What makes muons so special? After all, nobody has ever OBSERVED
>>> anything moving significantly faster than c. INCLUDING MUONS. INCLUDING
>>> PRODUCTS OF "NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS".
>>
>> Muons are often detected traveling at speeds >c in coincidence counters but the
>> recordings are rejected as spurious because Einstein and his followers said it
>> cannot happen.
>
>How silly. There would be a Nobel Prize in such observations, IFF they
>were definitive and reproducible. There have been numerous searches for
>particles with speeds > c, all negative.
The only 'prize' from the totally indoctrinated and inbred physics
establishment would be ridicule and expulsion on the grounds of being a
crackpot.
>> Besides, synchronising the clocks of two scintillarors in the lab so they can
>> measure true OW speeds of muons is well nigh impossible.
>
>You clearly do not know how this is done. One measures the time between
>pulses in two scintillators separated by a known distance. It is easy to
>obtain resolutions of speed in the 1% - 20% range; with care better
>resolutions are possible.
One has to synchronze the scintillators Tom. You snipped the part where I
suggested a way to do that.
Anyway, what is measured, is the time between arrivals at each scintillator.
The two may be only about 3 meters apart, so the time difference is around
10^-8 seconds.
How do you know what traveling through the first one does to the muon's speed?
As I understand it, all these muon experiments measure the average travel time
then calculate the average speed as D/(Taverage)...a procedure that virtually
eliminates the contribution of >c muons.
>> Most are slowed to <c in the lower layers of the atmosphere (where
>> incidentally, most are formed)
>
>How? magic? Just because Henry Wilson wishes it to be true?
Just as I wish the speed of light from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards
Earth, causing apparent variations in their brightness exactly as predicted.
>While charged particles do indeed lose energy when traveling through
>matter, the amount of matter in the atmosphere is woefully inadequate to
>significantly reduce the velocity of muons generated in the upper
>atmosphere that propagate to experiments on earth.
>
>Your random hallucinations to the contrary, we DO know a lot about this,
>and there has been almost a century of experimental study. As long as
>you remain willfully ignorant of the literature you will not understand
>physics. <shrug>
Well Tom, as I have said many times, if what you say is true then it simply
backs up my theory that a local EM FoR exists around large masses and inside
things like accelerators. Your theory is just rehashed LET.
PD
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:24:22 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Besides, synchronising the clocks of two scintillarors in the lab so they can
> >> measure true OW speeds of muons is well nigh impossible.
>
> >You clearly do not know how this is done. One measures the time between
> >pulses in two scintillators separated by a known distance. It is easy to
> >obtain resolutions of speed in the 1% - 20% range; with care better
> >resolutions are possible.
>
> One has to synchronze the scintillators Tom. You snipped the part where I
> suggested a way to do that.
>
> Anyway, what is measured, is the time between arrivals at each scintillator.
> The two may be only about 3 meters apart, so the time difference is around
> 10^-8 seconds.
> How do you know what traveling through the first one does to the muon's speed?
This is where Androcles gets all foamy-lipped, too. You measure both
the energy deposited in each scintillator as well as the time profile
of the signal. Moreover, it is often does as a train of three
scintillators (or more) so that you *can* make the measurements you
say aren't done. If a superluminal muon were to hit the first
scintillator at, say 70c, and then get reduced to a hair under c, hit
the second scintillator, and so on, then you would expect one of two
things to happen:
a) the time of flight between the first and second and between the
second and third would be the same, but there would be way more energy
deposited in the first scintillator as compared to the second or
third;
b) the second scintillator would remove as much energy as the first
scintillator did, in which case the time of flight between the second
and third would be a lot longer than the time of flight between the
first and second.
Neither of these things happen.
The time of flight is the same between subsequent pairs of
scintillators and the energy deposit in all three scintillators is the
same. That is an experimental result that is inconsistent with slowing
in the scintillator.
Synchronizing signals from scintillators is relatively easy. The
signals from each scintillator are sent through equal lengths of
signal cable (where that delay in the signal cables is checked
independently on the bench) to a common clock. The first signal to
arrive at the clock starts the clock, the second signal to arrive at
the clock stops the clock -- this clock is a TDC. Note that it is a
single, common clock. There is no need to synchronize any pair of
clocks, and the signal delays through the cable are completely
unambiguous and very precisely known.
As Tom says, there is quite a bit that is understood about this, and
it's a fairly straightforward measurement, something you could do with
a couple hundred bucks' worth of equipment yourself in your back yard.
PD
>
> As I understand it, all these muon experiments measure the average travel time
> then calculate the average speed as D/(Taverage)...a procedure that virtually
> eliminates the contribution of >c muons.
>
> >> Most are slowed to <c in the lower layers of the atmosphere (where
> >> incidentally, most are formed)
>
> >How? magic? Just because Henry Wilson wishes it to be true?
>
> Just as I wish the speed of light from orbiting stars moves at c+v towards
> Earth, causing apparent variations in their brightness exactly as predicted.
>
> >While charged particles do indeed lose energy when traveling through
> >matter, the amount of matter in the atmosphere is woefully inadequate to
> >significantly reduce the velocity of muons generated in the upper
> >atmosphere that propagate to experiments on earth.
>
> >Your random hallucinations to the contrary, we DO know a lot about this,
> >and there has been almost a century of experimental study. As long as
> >you remain willfully ignorant of the literature you will not understand
> >physics. <shrug>
>
> Well Tom, as I have said many times, if what you say is true then it simply
> backs up my theory that a local EM FoR exists around large masses and inside
> things like accelerators. Your theory is just rehashed LET.
>
> >Tom Roberts
>
> "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
> --Jonathan Swift.- Hide quoted text -
Henri Wilson
How did you synch the three Draper?
Did you send a muon through and adjust the middle one so the times were equal?
:)
>The time of flight is the same between subsequent pairs of
>scintillators and the energy deposit in all three scintillators is the
>same. That is an experimental result that is inconsistent with slowing
>in the scintillator.
>
>Synchronizing signals from scintillators is relatively easy. The
>signals from each scintillator are sent through equal lengths of
>signal cable (where that delay in the signal cables is checked
>independently on the bench) to a common clock.
Wait a minute Draper. How does this give you an accurate figure for the delay?
You don't know the time the signal left the scintillator.
You have to know these quantities to much better than about 10ns accuracy.
>The first signal to
>arrive at the clock starts the clock, the second signal to arrive at
>the clock stops the clock -- this clock is a TDC. Note that it is a
>single, common clock. There is no need to synchronize any pair of
>clocks, and the signal delays through the cable are completely
>unambiguous and very precisely known.
No they aren't. Ask an aetherist what he would say about that.
>As Tom says, there is quite a bit that is understood about this, and
>it's a fairly straightforward measurement, something you could do with
>a couple hundred bucks' worth of equipment yourself in your back yard.
You have to stop and start the clock to much better than about 10ns accuracy.
I don't like your chances.
Paul B. Andersen
No.
I challenge you to show it. (In a Galilean world.)
>>> No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
>>> You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
>>> so what?
>>>
>>>> This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>>>> the applied field at high speeds.
>>> Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
>>> diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
>> Yawn.
>
> To put it another way, when the speed of the charge approaches the maximum
> speed at which the field can act, then clearly the field cannot achieve the
> same acceleration of the charge as it did at low speeds.
You can repeat this meaningless statement as many times you want,
it is still proven wrong by what you snipped above:
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
And why do you keep repeating the phrase "the maximum speed at
which the field can act" when you must know that it is void of
meaning in an accelerator?
The field is there before the particle enters the RF-cavity,
an it acts whenever the particle is in the cavity, so what
speed of which field are you talking about?
>>>>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>>>>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>> High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
>>>> Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
>>>> (Storage ring - go figure.)
>>> The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
>>> quickly as they might otherwise do.
>> We were not talking about decay.
>
> You were about to.
>
>> We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
>
> That's OK. 'c' is impossible to achieve in an accelerator.
So according to you, a 2 GeV muon travels faster than c
in the atmosphere, but slower than c in an accelerator.
Go figure.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On 27 Mar 2007 20:03:24 -0700, "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is no need to synchronize any pair of
>> clocks, and the signal delays through the cable are completely
>> unambiguous and very precisely known.
>
> No they aren't. Ask an aetherist what he would say about that.
Quite.
If you prior to 1882 had asked an etherist like Michelson, he would
have told you that the delay depend on the orientation of the cable.
Interesting to notice that you claim the same.
Where have you been the last century, Henri?
In Wonderland?
Paul
Eric Gisse
<paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
[...]
> So according to you, a 2 GeV muon travels faster than c
> in the atmosphere, but slower than c in an accelerator.
>
> Go figure.
At some point you have to stop being surprised. Henri has been
maintaining contradictory positions on USENET for years, most likely
he has been doing his entire life.
Even if he realized and understood the contradictions, it wouldn't
matter - he is used to lying. The only thing that really needs
answering is "what the hell does he hope to accomplish?"
What is amusing is that when I first entered the physics degree
program here at UAF, ol' Ralph [Oh yea he posts under a pseudonym
too!] was spewing his nonsense. Here I am, roughly a year from
graduating [and with nearly 2 years inbetween were not in university]
and Henri is _still_ spewing the same exact nonsense.
The only difference between now and then is I have an education now
and all Ralph has is the diplomas he forged in mspaint.
>
> Paul
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spedlite.html
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message
news:eud86b$2s1u$1...@news01.tp.hist.no...
PD
Benchtesting the cable. You hook one end of the cable up to a pulse
generator, which is T'd to an o-scope, and you hook the other end of
the cable up to the same o-scope, and you measure the delay. Takes
about 2 minutes.
> You don't know the time the signal left the scintillator.
> You have to know these quantities to much better than about 10ns accuracy.
>
> >The first signal to
> >arrive at the clock starts the clock, the second signal to arrive at
> >the clock stops the clock -- this clock is a TDC. Note that it is a
> >single, common clock. There is no need to synchronize any pair of
> >clocks, and the signal delays through the cable are completely
> >unambiguous and very precisely known.
>
> No they aren't. Ask an aetherist what he would say about that.
>
> >As Tom says, there is quite a bit that is understood about this, and
> >it's a fairly straightforward measurement, something you could do with
> >a couple hundred bucks' worth of equipment yourself in your back yard.
>
> You have to stop and start the clock to much better than about 10ns accuracy.
>
> I don't like your chances.
>
I don't know why you wouldn't like them. Starting a stopping clocks to
that precision is straightforward with a TDC. Perhaps you need to
catch up.
PD
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > independent
Don Stockbauer
You perhaps wish that crossposting to sci.logic be ceased?
"My name is Luna! My name is Luna! Luna! Luna! My name is Luna!
Luna!"
"You name would not be "Luna" mayhaps, would it?"
- Woody Allen
- "Sleeper"
John Jones
Don Stockbauer
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
it should be obvious to you.
>>>> No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
>>>> You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
>>>> so what?
>>>>
>>>>> This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>>>>> the applied field at high speeds.
>>>> Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
>>>> diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
>>> Yawn.
>>
>> To put it another way, when the speed of the charge approaches the maximum
>> speed at which the field can act, then clearly the field cannot achieve the
>> same acceleration of the charge as it did at low speeds.
>
>You can repeat this meaningless statement as many times you want,
>it is still proven wrong by what you snipped above:
>
>When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
>difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
>This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
>The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
>even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
>This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>the applied field at high speeds.
The energy goes into particle KE plus that required to maintain the reverse
field.. ..so it shows up in bolometer measurements.
YOU simply explain the phenomenon buy claiming a 'relativistic mass increase'.
>And why do you keep repeating the phrase "the maximum speed at
>which the field can act" when you must know that it is void of
>meaning in an accelerator?
>The field is there before the particle enters the RF-cavity,
>an it acts whenever the particle is in the cavity, so what
>speed of which field are you talking about?
If you can tell me what a 'field ' is made of, I will answer you.
>>>>>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>>>>>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>> High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
>>>>> Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
>>>>> (Storage ring - go figure.)
>>>> The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
>>>> quickly as they might otherwise do.
>>> We were not talking about decay.
>>
>> You were about to.
>>
>>> We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
>>
>> That's OK. 'c' is impossible to achieve in an accelerator.
>
>So according to you, a 2 GeV muon travels faster than c
>in the atmosphere, but slower than c in an accelerator.
>
>Go figure.
The atmospheric ones originate in high energy collisions between cosmic
particles traveling at any speed wrt Earth. Naturely many muons will start out
traveling at speeds even greater that the cosmic ones.
So where is your problem Paul? Why do you believe their speeds should be
restricted to c wrt Earth? The muons don't give a stuff whether the Earth is
there or not.
Paul B. Andersen
It isn't.
Assume:
The rocket has an ideal engine which is capable of converting
the fuel mass to EM-radiation according to E = mc^2.
When a mass m << mass of rocket is converted to radiation energy,
the momentum of the radiated energy is E/c = mc in the instant
inertial rest frame of the rocket.
I still challenge you to prove your claim that according to
Newtonian mechanics (Galilean relativity), the ship's final body mass,
no matter how small, can never be made to exceed c wrt its original rest frame.
My claim is that if the rocket is driven with constant
acceleration, then the speed of the rocket in the original rest frame
will according to NM be 2.3c when the final mass of the rocket is
10% of its initial value.
Generally v(t) = c*ln(M/m(t)) where M is the initial mass
and m(t) is the mass at the time t.
Go on. Prove me wrong!
>>>>> No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
>>>>> You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
>>>>> so what?
>>>>>
>>>>>> This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>>>>>> the applied field at high speeds.
>>>>> Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
>>>>> diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
>>>> Yawn.
>>> To put it another way, when the speed of the charge approaches the maximum
>>> speed at which the field can act, then clearly the field cannot achieve the
>>> same acceleration of the charge as it did at low speeds.
>> You can repeat this meaningless statement as many times you want,
>> it is still proven wrong by what you snipped above:
>>
>> When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
>> difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
>> This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
>> The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
>> even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
>> This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>> the applied field at high speeds.
>
> The energy goes into particle KE plus that required to maintain the reverse
> field.. ..so it shows up in bolometer measurements.
> YOU simply explain the phenomenon buy claiming a 'relativistic mass increase'.
So you are claiming that a charged particle never can exceed c
because it is surrounded by a 'field bubble' with energy which approaches
infinity when the speed approaches c.
A muon is a charged particle.
You claim it can exceed c.
Go figure.
>> And why do you keep repeating the phrase "the maximum speed at
>> which the field can act" when you must know that it is void of
>> meaning in an accelerator?
>> The field is there before the particle enters the RF-cavity,
>> an it acts whenever the particle is in the cavity, so what
>> speed of which field are you talking about?
>
> If you can tell me what a 'field ' is made of, I will answer you.
So you admit that you can't defend your claim because you
don't know what you are talking about!
>>>>>>> Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
>>>>>>> collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>> High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
>>>>>> Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
>>>>>> (Storage ring - go figure.)
>>>>> The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
>>>>> quickly as they might otherwise do.
>>>> We were not talking about decay.
>>> You were about to.
>>>
>>>> We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
>>> That's OK. 'c' is impossible to achieve in an accelerator.
>> So according to you, a 2 GeV muon travels faster than c
>> in the atmosphere, but slower than c in an accelerator.
>>
>> Go figure.
>
> The atmospheric ones originate in high energy collisions between cosmic
> particles traveling at any speed wrt Earth. Naturely many muons will start out
> traveling at speeds even greater that the cosmic ones.
>
> So where is your problem Paul?
You have a problem.
According to you, a 2GeV can move at < c relative to the detector
that measures its energy, and a 2GeV can move > c relative to the detector,
or in other words - the energy of a muon is not related to its speed.
You are babbling incoherent nonsense, Henri.
Paul
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > independent
schoenf...@gmail.com
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:15:06 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:58:02 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>>>> Show the trivial proof, please.
>>>> Hohohahaha!
>>>>
>>>> You can't see the trivial proof....!!!!
>>> No.
>>> I challenge you to show it. (In a Galilean world.)
>>
>> it should be obvious to you.
>
>It isn't.
>
>Assume:
>The rocket has an ideal engine which is capable of converting
>the fuel mass to EM-radiation according to E = mc^2.
>When a mass m << mass of rocket is converted to radiation energy,
>the momentum of the radiated energy is E/c = mc in the instant
>inertial rest frame of the rocket.
>
>I still challenge you to prove your claim that according to
>Newtonian mechanics (Galilean relativity), the ship's final body mass,
>no matter how small, can never be made to exceed c wrt its original rest frame.
>
>My claim is that if the rocket is driven with constant
>acceleration, then the speed of the rocket in the original rest frame
>will according to NM be 2.3c when the final mass of the rocket is
>10% of its initial value.
>Generally v(t) = c*ln(M/m(t)) where M is the initial mass
>and m(t) is the mass at the time t.
>
>Go on. Prove me wrong!
Come on Paul, I can see through this.
You can't do it so you have plucked some unlikely figures out of the air and
asked me to do the maths for you.
>>> When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
>>> difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
>>> This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
>>> The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
>>> even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
>>> This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>>> the applied field at high speeds.
>>
>> The energy goes into particle KE plus that required to maintain the reverse
>> field.. ..so it shows up in bolometer measurements.
>> YOU simply explain the phenomenon buy claiming a 'relativistic mass increase'.
>
>So you are claiming that a charged particle never can exceed c
>because it is surrounded by a 'field bubble' with energy which approaches
>infinity when the speed approaches c.
>
>A muon is a charged particle.
>You claim it can exceed c.
I assume you mean, "an atmospheric muon can exceed c wrt the Earth".
It's speed was not determined by an electric field. It was created by a
collision between a cosmic ray traveling at any speed wrt Earth and an atom.
>Go figure.
I have.... there is no problem.
>>> And why do you keep repeating the phrase "the maximum speed at
>>> which the field can act" when you must know that it is void of
>>> meaning in an accelerator?
>>> The field is there before the particle enters the RF-cavity,
>>> an it acts whenever the particle is in the cavity, so what
>>> speed of which field are you talking about?
>>
>> If you can tell me what a 'field ' is made of, I will answer you.
>
>So you admit that you can't defend your claim because you
>don't know what you are talking about!
The broad principle of the theory is pretty obvious. A field accelerates a
charge. The movement of the charge reduces the applied field...IN THE VICINITY
OF THE CHARGE.
This is somewhat analogous to the back emf in a coil.
>>>
>>> Go figure.
>>
>> The atmospheric ones originate in high energy collisions between cosmic
>> particles traveling at any speed wrt Earth. Naturely many muons will start out
>> traveling at speeds even greater that the cosmic ones.
>>
>> So where is your problem Paul?
>
>You have a problem.
>According to you, a 2GeV can move at < c relative to the detector
>that measures its energy, and a 2GeV can move > c relative to the detector,
>or in other words - the energy of a muon is not related to its speed.
>
>You are babbling incoherent nonsense, Henri.
Who are you to talk about babbling?
The '2GeV' figure is determined from the (incorrectly) measured velocity.
>
>Paul
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.
Paul B. Andersen
YOU make the math for me, Henri?
You - who are unable to show the 'trivial proof'? :-)
But the math is simple enough:
Let us assume that the mass converted to radiation
per time unit is a constant fraction of the mass of the rocket:
So the change of the rocket mass per time unit is:
dm(t)/dt = -q*m(t) this is a mass flow. q is a rate.
m(t) = m(0)*exp(-qt) where m(0) is the initial mass.
The force on the rocket will be:
-dp/dt = -d(E/c)/dt = -d(mc)/dt = -c*dm/dt = q*m(t)*c
and the acceleration will thus be:
m*dv/dt = q*m*c
dv/dt = q*c
So the (proper) acceleration is constant.
The above is equally valid in relativity as well as NM,
but the following is according to NM (Galilean relativity):
v(t) = q*c*t (assuming v(0) = 0)
we have m(t)/m(0) = exp(-qt)
qt = - ln(m(t)/m(0)) = ln(m(0)/m(t))
v = c*ln(m(0)/m(t))
The upper limit to this speed is given by the ratio between
the initial mass of rocket+fuel/mass of rocket.
If this ratio is 10, v_max = 2.3c
If the ratio is 100, v_max = 4.6c
You were simply wrong.
>
>>>> When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
>>>> difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
>>>> This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
>>>> The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
>>>> even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
>>>> This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>>>> the applied field at high speeds.
>>> The energy goes into particle KE plus that required to maintain the reverse
>>> field.. ..so it shows up in bolometer measurements.
>>> YOU simply explain the phenomenon buy claiming a 'relativistic mass increase'.
>> So you are claiming that a charged particle never can exceed c
>> because it is surrounded by a 'field bubble' with energy which approaches
>> infinity when the speed approaches c.
>>
>> A muon is a charged particle.
>> You claim it can exceed c.
>
> I assume you mean, "an atmospheric muon can exceed c wrt the Earth".
No, I don't.
The consequence of your claim above is that _any_ charged
particle moving in an area free of external fields must have
a 'field bubble', and the energy of this 'field bubble' must
approach infinite when v -> c. So according to you, _no_ charged
particle can move faster than c.
> It's speed was not determined by an electric field. It was created by a
> collision between a cosmic ray traveling at any speed wrt Earth and an atom.
>
>> Go figure.
>
> I have.... there is no problem.
You are obviously too stupid to see the consequences of your own claims.
You don't even see them when I rub your face in them.
In accelerators muons are routinely accelerated to > TeV.
These energies are measured with the calorimetric principle.
And we know these muons are moving with speeds < c.
Cosmic muons surely have energies << TeV.
You claim they are moving faster than c.
Ergo: you claim that the muon energy is not related to its speed.
But enough of this.
Your claims are simply too stupid to discuss seriously.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:34:25 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>
>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:15:06 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>> <paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:58:02 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
>>>>>> Show the trivial proof, please.
>>>>> Hohohahaha!
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't see the trivial proof....!!!!
>>>> No.
>>>> I challenge you to show it. (In a Galilean world.)
>>> it should be obvious to you.
>> It isn't.
>>
>> Assume:
>> The rocket has an ideal engine which is capable of converting
>> When a mass m << mass of rocket is converted to radiation energy,
>> the momentum of the radiated energy is E/c = mc in the instant
>> inertial rest frame of the rocket.
>>
>> I still challenge you to prove your claim that according to
>> Newtonian mechanics (Galilean relativity), the ship's final body mass,
>> no matter how small, can never be made to exceed c wrt its original rest frame.
>>
>> My claim is that if the rocket is driven with constant
>> acceleration, then the speed of the rocket in the original rest frame
>> will according to NM be 2.3c when the final mass of the rocket is
>> 10% of its initial value.
>> Generally v(t) = c*ln(M/m(t)) where M is the initial mass
>> and m(t) is the mass at the time t.
>>
>> Go on. Prove me wrong!
>
> Come on Paul, I can see through this.
> You can't do it so you have plucked some unlikely figures out of the air and
> asked me to do the maths for you.
YOU make the math for me, Henri?
You were simply wrong.
>
>>>> When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
>>>> difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
>>>> This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
>>>> The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
>>>> even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
>>>> This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
>>>> the applied field at high speeds.
>>> The energy goes into particle KE plus that required to maintain the reverse
>>> field.. ..so it shows up in bolometer measurements. YOU simply explain the phenomenon buy claiming a 'relativistic
mass increase'.
>> So you are claiming that a charged particle never can exceed c
>> because it is surrounded by a 'field bubble' with energy which approaches
>> infinity when the speed approaches c.
>>
>> A muon is a charged particle.
>> You claim it can exceed c.
>
> I assume you mean, "an atmospheric muon can exceed c wrt the Earth".
No, I don't.
The consequence of your claim above is that _any_ charged
particle moving in an area free of external fields must have
a 'field bubble', and the energy of this 'field bubble' must
approach infinite when v -> c. So according to you, _no_ charged
particle can move faster than c.
> It's speed was not determined by an electric field. It was created by a
> collision between a cosmic ray traveling at any speed wrt Earth and an atom.
>
>> Go figure.
>
> I have.... there is no problem.
You are obviously too stupid to see the consequences of your own claims.
You don't even see them when I rub your face in them.
>
In accelerators muons are routinely accelerated to > TeV.
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
That seems logically correct.
>The above is equally valid in relativity as well as NM,
>but the following is according to NM (Galilean relativity):
>
>v(t) = q*c*t (assuming v(0) = 0)
>
>we have m(t)/m(0) = exp(-qt)
>qt = - ln(m(t)/m(0)) = ln(m(0)/m(t))
>v = c*ln(m(0)/m(t))
>
>The upper limit to this speed is given by the ratio between
>the initial mass of rocket+fuel/mass of rocket.
>If this ratio is 10, v_max = 2.3c
>If the ratio is 100, v_max = 4.6c
>
>You were simply wrong.
Only IF your initial assumption is correct....ie., that all the fuel mass can
be converted to radiation with 100% efficiency.
There is no evidence that this can happen.
E= mc^2 is only known to hold for bonding energy...not 'mass' itself.
> >> So you are claiming that a charged particle never can exceed c
> >> because it is surrounded by a 'field bubble' with energy which approaches
> >> infinity when the speed approaches c.
> >>
> >> A muon is a charged particle.
> >> You claim it can exceed c.
> >
> > I assume you mean, "an atmospheric muon can exceed c wrt the Earth".
>
>No, I don't.
>The consequence of your claim above is that _any_ charged
>particle moving in an area free of external fields must have
>a 'field bubble', and the energy of this 'field bubble' must
>approach infinite when v -> c. So according to you, _no_ charged
>particle can move faster than c.
My claim is that the 'plates' of an accelerator constitute a capacitor and that
a moving charge MUST set up a back emf in the circuit.
I also say that at high speeds, the reverse field cannot get to the plates any
faster than the charge itself...and so forms a 'bubble' around the charge.
> > It's speed was not determined by an electric field. It was created by a
> > collision between a cosmic ray traveling at any speed wrt Earth and an atom.
> >
> >> Go figure.
> >
> > I have.... there is no problem.
>
>You are obviously too stupid to see the consequences of your own claims.
>You don't even see them when I rub your face in them.
Paul, a cosmic ray doesn't care if the Earth exists or not. It can be traveling
at any speed wrt Earth when it arrives...and so can the muons it produces in
collisions.
You are obviously too stupid to understand this simple process. It is not
related to the 'bubble effect between capacitor plates'.
That energy includes the 'bubble component'.
>Cosmic muons surely have energies << TeV.
>You claim they are moving faster than c.
They can be. This energy is all kinetic (in the Earth frame). There is NO
bubble energy.
>Ergo: you claim that the muon energy is not related to its speed.
>
>But enough of this.
>Your claims are simply too stupid to discuss seriously.
You are making a fool of yourself again.
Paul B. Andersen
Indeed.
This is the ol' matter-antimatter drive. Possible in principle.
But it was actually YOUR assumption:
Henri Wilson wrote:
| A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
| if it uses all its mc2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
To "use all its mc^2 energy" can only be done by converting the mass
to energy - and that energy comes in the form of radiation.
Henri Wilson wrote:
| However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
| provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
| be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
| you derive )
You have now admitted that this was wrong.
In a Galilean world, that is.
So much for the 'trivial proof' you cannot produce.
>
> There is no evidence that this can happen.
> E= mc^2 is only known to hold for bonding energy...not 'mass' itself.
Where have you been the last 50 years, Henri? In Wonderland? :-)
LEP - CERN
Beautiful, Henri.
Muons come in two flavours, with and without bubble energy.
Weird, isn't it? :-)
>
>> Ergo: you claim that the muon energy is not related to its speed.
>>
>> But enough of this.
>> Your claims are simply too stupid to discuss seriously.
>
> You are making a fool of yourself again.
>
>> Paul
>
>
> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.
Paul
John Jones
> Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > mluttg...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>
> > > independent
John Jones
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Your above calculations do not work. You have not balanced the energy equation.
>> There is no evidence that this can happen.
>> E= mc^2 is only known to hold for bonding energy...not 'mass' itself.
>
>Where have you been the last 50 years, Henri? In Wonderland? :-)
>LEP - CERN
Sure, certain particles can break down into gammas with energy mc^2 but how far
can that go? How much energy must be put in to get mc^2 out of a neutron?
Mot at all. You obviously know little about fundamentals of electricity.
Atmospheric muons are not part of an electrical circuit.
Electrons moving in an applied fields are.
The Ghost In The Machine
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no>
wrote
on Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:03:18 +0200
<eurni6$9kj$1...@news01.tp.hist.no>:
Yeah, if one can find some antimatter and then harvest it without
blowing the harvester -- and everything around it for a few AU's -- to
kingdom come...
:-)
(Somehow, they never did get around to explaining that issue in Star Trek.)
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John Jones
Paul B. Andersen
Hand waving.
I challenge you to demonstrate that the energy doesn't balance.
That won't happen, will it? :-)
But why do you think the energy won't balance?
You probably don't realize that the fuel (radiation) that
is ejected when the rocket is moving at c has no kinetic
energy at all in the original frame. That's why the integrated
kinetic energy of the ejected mass will be much less than mc^2.
Think about it.
It may help if you consider the following example.
Given two equal masses, each with mass m. A charge explodes
between them, and the masses move in opposite direction
with equal speeds v. The kinetic energy is mv^2/2 + mv^2/2 = mv^2.
The energy in the charge was thus mv^2.
Now we observe the very same scenario in a frame where
the two masses are moving with the speed v.
The kinetic energy of the two masses is (2m)v^2/2 = mv^2
before the explosion. After the explosion, one mass will
be stationary, kinetic energy 0, while the other will
move at 2v, kinetic energy m(2v)^2/2 = 2mv^2.
The energy equation balances, because the total kinetic energy
has increased with mv^2, the energy in the explosion.
But note, observed in this frame, the kinetic energy of one
of the masses increased from mv^2/2 to 2mv^2 ( + (3/2)mv^2)
while the other one lost all its kinetic energy.
So one of the masses increased its kinetic energy _by more
than the energy in the charge_.
>>> There is no evidence that this can happen.
>>> E= mc^2 is only known to hold for bonding energy...not 'mass' itself.
>> Where have you been the last 50 years, Henri? In Wonderland? :-)
>> LEP - CERN
>
> Sure, certain particles can break down into gammas with energy mc^2 but how far
> can that go? How much energy must be put in to get mc^2 out of a neutron?
Irrelevant.
YOUR assumption was: "it uses all its mc^2 energy".
But the fuel can be hydrogen and anti-hydrogen.
How do the muons moving in the parts of the accelerator where
there are no external fields know that? :-)
This is stupid, Henri.
Paul
Henri Wilson
<paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
I was already aware of that.
Also, when the rocket ->c, all remaining fuel has gained KE mc^/2. If it is
ejected at c wrt the rocket, it can only replace the energy required to get
itself to c..... and therefore can contribute no net energy gain to the rocket
(wrt base)
>It may help if you consider the following example.
>
>Given two equal masses, each with mass m. A charge explodes
>between them, and the masses move in opposite direction
>with equal speeds v. The kinetic energy is mv^2/2 + mv^2/2 = mv^2.
>The energy in the charge was thus mv^2.
>
>Now we observe the very same scenario in a frame where
>the two masses are moving with the speed v.
>The kinetic energy of the two masses is (2m)v^2/2 = mv^2
>before the explosion. After the explosion, one mass will
>be stationary, kinetic energy 0, while the other will
>move at 2v, kinetic energy m(2v)^2/2 = 2mv^2.
>The energy equation balances, because the total kinetic energy
>has increased with mv^2, the energy in the explosion.
>
>But note, observed in this frame, the kinetic energy of one
>of the masses increased from mv^2/2 to 2mv^2 ( + (3/2)mv^2)
>while the other one lost all its kinetic energy.
>So one of the masses increased its kinetic energy _by more
>than the energy in the charge_.
Yes, kinetic energy is obviously frame dependent.
>>>> There is no evidence that this can happen.
>>>> E= mc^2 is only known to hold for bonding energy...not 'mass' itself.
>>> Where have you been the last 50 years, Henri? In Wonderland? :-)
>>> LEP - CERN
>>
>> Sure, certain particles can break down into gammas with energy mc^2 but how far
>> can that go? How much energy must be put in to get mc^2 out of a neutron?
>
>Irrelevant.
>YOUR assumption was: "it uses all its mc^2 energy".
>But the fuel can be hydrogen and anti-hydrogen.
...but it's not irelevant.
how much energy does it take to get all the Mc^2 energy out of a mass?
>>>>> Cosmic muons surely have energies << TeV.
>>>>> You claim they are moving faster than c.
>>>> They can be. This energy is all kinetic (in the Earth frame). There is NO
>>>> bubble energy.
>>> Beautiful, Henri.
>>> Muons come in two flavours, with and without bubble energy.
>>> Weird, isn't it? :-)
>>
>> Mot at all. You obviously know little about fundamentals of electricity.
>>
>> Atmospheric muons are not part of an electrical circuit.
>> Electrons moving in an applied fields are.
>
>How do the muons moving in the parts of the accelerator where
>there are no external fields know that? :-)
The bubble temporaly reduces in size if there is no fields...but that takes
time, depending on the capacitance of the circuit.
>This is stupid, Henri.
To you maybe.
Do you deny that a charge moving between two plates connected by a wire will
constitute a current in that circuit?
Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
><paul.b....@hiadeletethis.no>
> wrote
>>>>
>>>> The upper limit to this speed is given by the ratio between
>>>> the initial mass of rocket+fuel/mass of rocket.
>>>> If this ratio is 10, v_max = 2.3c
>>>> If the ratio is 100, v_max = 4.6c
>>>>
>>>> You were simply wrong.
>>>
>>> Only IF your initial assumption is correct....ie., that all the fuel mass can
>>> be converted to radiation with 100% efficiency.
>>
>> Indeed.
>> This is the ol' matter-antimatter drive. Possible in principle.
>
>Yeah, if one can find some antimatter and then harvest it without
>blowing the harvester -- and everything around it for a few AU's -- to
>kingdom come...
>
>:-)
Don't be too hard on him Ghost...he does his best...
>
>(Somehow, they never did get around to explaining that issue in Star Trek.)
>
>[rest snipped]
>
>--
>#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
Eric Gisse
[...]
Gee Ralph, it is odd you are so certain about a subject when you can
only speak in vague terms about it.
How about some math?