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: Henri Wilson on 25 Oct 2005 18:03 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:56:56 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"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. You are correct... but it would be SOME rocket!! > >>> >> 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. You all completely missed my point. Some rockets are fired from holes in the ground, like bullets from a gun. In that situation, the fuel that does the initial accelerating is EXTERNAL to the rocket. get it now? > >George > 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: Jeff Root on 25 Oct 2005 18:09 George replied to Jeff, who was replying to other guys: > >> >> 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. I think what Eric and I had in mind was that the particle plays the role of Henri's rocket, in the scenario set up by BZ: playing tag with a slow photon. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 25 Oct 2005 19:25 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:40:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:17:05 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>But according to you, the BaT predicts a light curve >>>quite different from this: >>>http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978MNRAS.184..523N&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf >>>or >>>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978MNRAS.184..523N& >>> And retrieve the full article. >>> >>>Wrong prediction -> theory falsified. >>>BaT is falsified. >> >> >> There are other factors to consider. > >Such as? day/night temperature variation. Star shape Local extinction Long term extinction, if any. > >> >>>>>>>>Different layers within the star have different radial velocities...and that >>>>>>>>includes gaseous layers far beyond the extremities of the main body. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is caused by the rotation _only_. >>>>>>>The orbital motion has nothing to do with it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Run my little program: >>>>>>http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/radialvs.exe >>>>>> >>>>>>(select 'star rotation =1' for tidal lock) >>>>> >>>>>So the star is rotating. >>>> >>>> >>>>Most - ney ALL - stars rotate. >>> >>>Indeed they do. >>> >>> >>>>Are you able to run my program? It takes only about five seconds to download. >>>>You will enjoy it. >>>>A picture speaks a thousand words. >>> >>>I do not need a picture to understand that >>>different parts of a rotating star have different >>>radial velocities. >> >> >> That is not the point. You seem to want to avoid the important point. >> >> .....which is that in a rotating star, the average radial velocity (wrt a >> distant observer) of all elements of a particular spherical layer is not the >> same as that of another layer. > >I didn't avoid that point. >I said why it is irrelevent. >All the radiation comes from the same layer, the photosphere. > >>>>>>Depends how hot it is and how fast it is rotating. >>>>> >>>>>In Wondersland, yes. >>>>>But not in the real world. >>>> >>>> >>>>Can you not see that the light from the edges would be doppler shifted both >>>>ways. It the star was rotating fast enough that would broaden the radiation >>>>curve away from precise black body. >>> >>>You have no sense of proportions, have you? >>>Of course a rotating star will broaden the black body >>>spectrum, but only to such a small degree that it >>>never will be detectable. >>> >>>As you so correctly said above, all stars are rotating. >>>And all stars radiates a black body spectrum. >>>The broadening of the BB spectrum due to the stars rotation >>>is never observable. >> >> >> OK you accept that it happens. > >So do you accept that this effect is way too small >to be observed? Not really. It depends on the rotation speed and what is deemed significant. ....but let's not worry about it to much. >>>>You still haven't run the program. >>> >>>I have. >>>Different parts of the star have different >>>radial velocity _because the star is rotating_. >>>So what? >> >> >> I DON'T BELIEVE YOU RAN IT. >> You refuse to accept the truth. > >What the hell are you fussing about? You refuse to accept the truth. Androcles is right about you. >>>I think you know that the BaT predicts the same >>>light curve for 10um as for visible light. >> >> >> there are several factors to be considered apart from the one I gave. > >And the factor you gave was that different parts of the spectrum >are emitted from different depths of the star. >That is wrong, so you have still to mention a single factor. How do you know it is wrong. You are guessing. > >So what are the factors to be considered? > >The truth is simple, Henri. >The BaT is falsified. >Again. Androcles is definitely right about you. > >Paul 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: Eric Gisse on 25 Oct 2005 20:00 bz wrote: [snip] > > I am not the type of person to take the high road. > > There is only one person that you can control. You. > > Your actions DO have an effect on others, however. > > Taking the high road costs less in the long run. Good point, I will remember that. > > > > > > -- > 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: bz on 25 Oct 2005 23:02
"Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in news:1130278175.696539.202770 @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > George replied to Jeff, who was replying to other guys: > >> >> >> 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. > > I think what Eric and I had in mind was that the particle > plays the role of Henri's rocket, in the scenario set up > by BZ: playing tag with a slow photon. > Right. If c'=c+v then there will be c'=c-v photons traveling at v<<c. Those photons could be caught and even passed by a mass traveling < c. If mass can pass 'slow photons' that mass would be traveling faster than light. That leaves Henri to explain WHY c should appear to be a limit to how fast mass can move. -- 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 |