Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: bz on 25 Oct 2005 08:38 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in news:1130237062.882954.46320 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Bob Zinn replied to Eric Gisse, > who was replying to Henri Wilson: > ..... > > Henri's purpose in the rocket scenario is to show that a > rocket cannot achieve unlimited speed relative to its > starting point-- that is, the "base". I never argued against that. I said [quote] From: bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> Message-ID: <Xns96F86BC263075WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139> ..... Robert <RB@..> wrote in news:t9lll1lf8gesdltqsprkbqggf5pbq3t3sa(a)4ax.com: >>How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >>vertical relative to me? > > You cannot catch up. You don't have enough (mc^2) energy in you body to > get the last atom up to that speed. > > Robert AKA Henri, That should be no problem for a BaTer. All you need to do is to get up to .2 c (particles much better than that all the time in accelerators), and catch up to a photon emitted by a particle going at -0.9c. The particle that emits the photon (going in your direction) is going away from you in the opposite direction from the direction of your travel. By the BaT, c'=c+0.9c = 0.1c So, if you are going 0.2 c you should have no trouble catching a photon that is only going 0.1 c relative to you, should you? Henri, I am afraid you can't have it both ways. You can't say that massive bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons move at c'=c+v. Your approach leads to logical contradictions. [unquote] > The fundamental > idea of his argument is that the whole mass of propellant > which has not yet been used must be accelerated along with > the rest of the rocket. That propellant is accelerated in > the direction that the rocket is moving. Which had nothing to do with the possiblity of [in a BaTty universe] catching a photon moving at 0.1 c with a rocket ship that moves at 0.2 c. ..... > Henri's point here is valid and relevant. Henri's 'valid' points are not relevant. They are smoke screens. ..... >> Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. > > Thanks, BZ! I was thinking about saying the same thing, > and a minute later found that you'd already said it. I decided a while back that I will ONLY communicate with those that have enough respect for themselves to treat me with respect. Such language shows lack of self respect boiling over onto others. ..... > > Henri is mentally ill. I am not a qualified mental professional. I make no judgements. > I don't know exactly what kind of > mental illness it is, but it is more serious than "just a > bit muxed up". Even if physics is the only subject that > he has delusions about, this one subject is controlling a > large part of his life. And he has managed to drag you > and me into it. You are arguing physics with a mental > illness, not with a person. That remains to be seen. I have given up arguing with Henri. I sometimes see a 'weak spot' in his 'logic' and try to point it out to him. He usually invents a new phenomina to fill the hole. >> >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come >> >> from an external source... >> >> magic? > > No, like Eric said: Particle accelerator. Not in the problem I presented to Henri. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: George Dishman on 25 Oct 2005 16:56 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1130237062.882954.46320(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Henri's purpose in the rocket scenario is to show that a > rocket cannot achieve unlimited speed relative to its > starting point-- that is, the "base". The fundamental > idea of his argument is that the whole mass of propellant > which has not yet been used must be accelerated along with > the rest of the rocket. That propellant is accelerated in > the direction that the rocket is moving. Given a rocket plus fel moving at any speed, some exhaust is expelled such that it is still moving in the same direction as the rocket but at lower speed, for momentum to be conserved the speed of the rocket must have been increased. In the limit, consider a rocket which ejects its exhaust at an ever increasing relative speed such the the exhaust is always at rest relative to the base. All the energy extracted from the fuel is in the form of kinetic energy of the rocket or heat in the exhaust. >> >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come >> >> from an external source... >> >> magic? > > No, like Eric said: Particle accelerator. An accelerator gives a high velocity exhaust but still needs fuel. For an external source, consider carrying only antimatter and reacting it with the ISM collected in something like a ramjet. The mass of the ISM is also converted to energy. George
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Oct 2005 17:36 On 25 Oct 2005 03:58:54 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Eric Gisse wrote: > >> He makes the same elementry mistakes over and over. > >Those are not mistakes. They are delusions which support >his fantasy. > >> Patience is not the solution. > >I agree. Patience is only a part of the solution. > >> The tone was set and continues to be set by Henri > >Bad choice. > >> who insists on not calling me by my actual name. > >It hurts me a little every time I see him do that, and >I've never really had my funny last name made fun of. > >> I am not the type of person to take the high road. > >We can change that. Go root yer boot! > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Oct 2005 17:46 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:00:09 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> > wrote >>>>> >I agree. OK in SR, bad for BaT. >>>>> >>>>> why? >>>> >>>> You don't place bounds on the v in c+v. c' can be smaller than c. >>> >>>Exactly right, Dr. Gisse. BaT doesn't place bounds on velocity. SR does. >>> >>>That presents Henri with a problem. >>> >>> >>>>> >> Try rocket propulsion theory....remember the exhaust accelerates >>>>> >> too, mainly in the same direction as the pulse. >>>>> > >>>>> >????. The exhaust accelerates in all directions, the rocket chamber >>>>> >confines the accelerated paricles and only allows them to escape in >>>>> >the direction opposite to the light pulse you are trying to catch. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. >>> >>>http://www.suzy.co.nz/suzysworld/Factpage.asp?FactSheet=116 >>> >>>http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mrockets.html >>> >>> >>>>> Initially the propellent moves in the opposite direction to the rocket >>>>> motion wrt base. >>> >>>I think you are confusing yourself. The mass of the rocket is moving, as a >>>unit, in the direction that the .2 c BaT photon is going. >>> >>>The exhaust from the rocket is going in the opposite direction, to provide >>>the 'action-reaction' push. We don't know where the base is, nor do we >>>care. >>> >>>>> When the rocket speed wrt base equals the propellent speed wrt the >>>>> rocket, the propellent speed wrt base becomes zero. >>> >>>In order for the rocket to accelerate in one direction, the reaction-mass >>>of the fuel must be ejected from the rocket at a much higher velocity in >>>the other direction. >>> >>>>> Further acceleration by the rocket sees the propellent also moving in >>>>> the rocket direction wrt base. >>> >>>Acceleration doesn't have eyes, so IT can't see anything. >>> >>>>> So energy is eventually required to accelerate both rocket and >>>>> propellent in the same direction wrt base. >>> >>>Forget about the base, it could be in any direction by now. >>> >>>>> As the rocket approaches c wrt base, so does the propellent speed...and >>>>> in the same direction. >>> >>>No, the exhaust must go in the opposite direction from the rocket. >> >> A good example of the futility of arguing with non physicists. >> >> Bob, If the propellent is moving at 1000 m/sec wrt the rocket >> and the rocket has reached a speed of 1001 m/sec wrt base, >> what is the speed of the propellent wrt base? > >1/(1-(1000)(1001)/c^2), of course. What else? :-P > >At these velocities, that translates into >3209839924060063/3209839924024313 m/s exactly or >1.000000000011137627061220767 m/s or >1 + 1.113762706122076699*10^-11 m/s, so we're not >exactly talking easily measurable effect here. > >Of course with that rocket performance one's going to have >used up 63% of one's fuel just getting to 1001 m/s. > >v_f = v_i + v_e * log(M_i / M_f) [Tsiolkovsky, Newtonian variant] > >where v_i is the initial velocity of the rocket, v_f the >final velocity, v_e the exhaust relative to the rocket, >M_i the initial rocket mass (with fuel), and M_f the final >rocket mass (no fuel). Note that this is Newtonian; there is >a relativistic variant but I'd have to hunt for it, and of >course this is for straight-line travel. > >If v_i = 0, one can rewrite this as > >v_f/v_e = log(M_i / M_f) > >M_f = M_i/exp(v_f/v_e) = M_i * exp(-v_f/v_e) > >Assuming M_i = 100000 kg, M_f = 36751.2 kg. > >Personally, I'd want a fusion rocket. The Ultimate Engine, >which got shot down by Uncle Al -- and for good reason, >until we get the bugs worked out in fusion drive :-) -- >would have had about 25MeV applied to a helium atom, >translating into an approximate exhaust velocity of >34500000 m/s or .115 c, if my computations are correct. >One can get even higher exhaust velocities if one wants to >discard hydrogen or even electron-positron pairs instead. >Sans antimatter, subspace, Asimovian hyperjumping, >stargates, or Fred Saberhagen's "C+ theory" (whatever that >might be, in Fred Saberhagen's Berserker universe) this >is about the best we can do. One could also contemplate >a deuterium-tritium fusion power source, yielding about >17 MeV plus a free neutron, but the tritium doesn't last >long when not in use. > >> >> When the rocket reaches 2900000000 m/sec, what is that speed? >> > >Sorry. Tachyonic rockets are not allowed. :-P >Did you mean 290000000 m/s? If so, the exhaust velocity >relative to the base is as one might expect: > >(290000000-1001)/(1-(290000000)(1001)/c^2) >= 289999935.6742280716613296097 > >Scoff as one will, but that is what SR predicts. > >> >> >>> >>>>> KE approaches 1/2mc^2. Expended energy dissipated as heat must be at >>>>> least that. >>>>> Total final energy = mc^2 >>> >>> >>> >>>> Oh you are using Newtonian kinematics, to prove the validity of the >>>> "BaT", while using an example derived from special relativity? >>>> >>>> Well, that is WRONG, ****head! For so many g*dd*mn reasons. >>> >>>Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. Leave them to A**r*cl*s >>>and his ilk. >>> >>>> Newtonian mechanics sets c=oo, and SR sets c = constant in all inertial >>>> frames. >>>> >>>> Your analysis is dead on arrival because you are using a theory that is >>>> incompatable with the premise of your theory. >>>> >>>> Your analysis is dead on arrival due to the above plus E = mc^2 is >>>> derived from SR and not Newton. I asked for you to show me otherwise >>>> and since you are incapable of doing it, my point stands. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> get it? >>>>> >>>>> I say there can never be enough energy in chemical or nuclear bonds to >>>>> get to c...because maximum available is E=mc^2. >>> >>>I agreed already that in SR universe we can't reach c with matter. >>> >>>But in BaT universe, c isn't a magic number. Newtonian Relativity says that >>>I can keep accelerating, and if you run the numbers, without relativistic >>>mass increase as you approach c, you will find that it is easy for the >>>rocket to exceed c.... And it would IF we lived in a BaTty universe. >> >> Bob, there is no mass increase. That is a leftover from aether theory. >> >> In relativity, contractions aren't real. > >Maybe not, but the LHC designers don't seem to want to design >for superluminal protons. > >> >>>> That is derivable from SR, not Newton. Goddamn you are dumb. >>> >>>He is just a bit muxed up. >>>No need to be rude. Name calling makes the name caller look bad. >>> >>>>> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come from an >>>>> external source... >>> >>>magic? >> >> No, external boosters are used to launch rocket regularly. > >External boosters are still part of the rocket, until shed. > >> >>> >>>> No sh*t. Perhaps we could test the hypothesis of c'=c+v using that >>>> method. >>>> >>>> Henri just thought of the concept now known as the "particle >>>> accelerator". Only a century and change late Henri, good job! >> >> Geese seems to have discovered drinking. >> >> Next he might discover that women are better than his fist. > >That's too much information. :-P (FSVO "information".) > >[.sigsnip] Ghost, why do you always want to make simple things seem hard? My point was that the propellent ends up travelling in the same direction as the rocket wrt base. That applies in NM or SR. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Oct 2005 17:58
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:38:49 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in news:1130237062.882954.46320 >@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > >> Bob Zinn replied to Eric Gisse, >> who was replying to Henri Wilson: >> >.... >> >> Henri's purpose in the rocket scenario is to show that a >> rocket cannot achieve unlimited speed relative to its >> starting point-- that is, the "base". > >I never argued against that. >I said [quote] >From: bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> >Message-ID: <Xns96F86BC263075WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139> >.... > >Robert <RB@..> wrote in news:t9lll1lf8gesdltqsprkbqggf5pbq3t3sa(a)4ax.com: > >>>How about if I emit a photon, then catch up to it? Is it still going >>>vertical relative to me? >> >> You cannot catch up. You don't have enough (mc^2) energy in you body to >> get the last atom up to that speed. >> >> > >Robert AKA Henri, > >That should be no problem for a BaTer. > >All you need to do is to get up to .2 c (particles much better than that >all the time in accelerators), and catch up to a photon emitted by a >particle going at -0.9c. > >The particle that emits the photon (going in your direction) is going away >from you in the opposite direction from the direction of your travel. > >By the BaT, c'=c+0.9c = 0.1c > >So, if you are going 0.2 c you should have no trouble catching a photon >that is only going 0.1 c relative to you, should you? I'm sure this is happening continuously. How would we know? That is not the original problem. > >Henri, I am afraid you can't have it both ways. You can't say that massive >bodies can't go faster than c while maintaining that photons move at >c'=c+v. Your approach leads to logical contradictions. >[unquote] > > >> The fundamental >> idea of his argument is that the whole mass of propellant >> which has not yet been used must be accelerated along with >> the rest of the rocket. That propellant is accelerated in >> the direction that the rocket is moving. > >Which had nothing to do with the possiblity of [in a BaTty universe] >catching a photon moving at 0.1 c with a rocket ship that moves at 0.2 c. > >.... > >> Henri's point here is valid and relevant. > >Henri's 'valid' points are not relevant. They are smoke screens. You obviously don't like to see one of your own kind supporting me. >>> Please, watch the language. No need for such terms. >> >> Thanks, BZ! I was thinking about saying the same thing, >> and a minute later found that you'd already said it. > >I decided a while back that I will ONLY communicate with those that have >enough respect for themselves to treat me with respect. Such language shows >lack of self respect boiling over onto others. > >.... >> >> Henri is mentally ill. > >I am not a qualified mental professional. I make no judgements. As a qualified psychologist, I have already categorized the contributors to this group. Most come under the heading of 'would-be-if-I-could-be'. > >> I don't know exactly what kind of >> mental illness it is, but it is more serious than "just a >> bit muxed up". Even if physics is the only subject that >> he has delusions about, this one subject is controlling a >> large part of his life. And he has managed to drag you >> and me into it. You are arguing physics with a mental >> illness, not with a person. > >That remains to be seen. I have given up arguing with Henri. I sometimes >see a 'weak spot' in his 'logic' and try to point it out to him. He usually >invents a new phenomina to fill the hole. I just base my arguments on real physics. I can't go wrong that way. >>> >> However, maybe some of the accelerating energy could come >>> >> from an external source... >>> >>> magic? >> >> No, like Eric said: Particle accelerator. > >Not in the problem I presented to Henri. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". |