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: Eric Gisse on 26 Oct 2005 00:27 bz wrote: > "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. b-b-b-but E=mc^2 energy! "you don't believe in SR" b-b-but it was around before SR. "no it wasn't. and you can't prove otherwise" <changes subject> > > > > -- > 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: Henri Wilson on 26 Oct 2005 02:00 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:02:26 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >"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. There is no limit. It's just very hard to get even close to c because of the energy situation which I have already explaioned. Photons and bits of matter are impinging on Earth at a whole range of speeds, including many >c.. 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 26 Oct 2005 02:07 On 25 Oct 2005 17:28:04 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 24 Oct 2005 17:04:52 -0700, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> c is a universal constant. > >That is not my point. > >If c'=c+v, c' can be smaller than c and it allows the possibility to >catch up with photons. We do it all the time....but photons don't stick up a bloody big sign saying "I'm traveling at 2948743050 m/sec wrt you". >If c' ISN'T equal to c+v, why have you been telling me "c+v" all this >time? > >> >> The fact that it is also the speed of EM wrt its source is a bit of a mystery >> ...but nobody bothers to think about that because they are immersed up to their >> eyeballs in Einsteiniana.. > >Give the "Einsteinia" whine a break. The only person here voicing >agreement is Androcles, who is even less capable of objective >discussion than you are. I am more patient than Androcles. However I can appreciate his intolerance of idiots who know nothing about basic physics. >> > >> >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, fuckhead! For so many goddamn reasons. >> > >> >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. >> >> I just did. > >No you didn't! I told you that I don't like it when you lie to my face, >that opinion hasn't changed since the last time I expressed it. > >You SAID it (E=mc^2) existed before SR but you neither provided the >derivation nor provided a literature reference supporting your >assertion. E=Mc^2 from the day the universe formed. >Your analysis is STILL dead because because of your trifecta of >incompatable juxtapositions of SR, Newton, and "BaT". The three >theories are mutually incompatable. > >Just to be sure you see this: I want to see either a derivation of E = >mc^2 via classical physics, or a literature reference which does so. >Anything else means you can't. It isn't related to SR at all. >> > >> >Henri just thought of the concept now known as the "particle >> >accelerator". Only a century and change late Henri, good job! >> >> I think you are very confused. > >I think you are limited in your imagination. > >Whatever you use in an accelerator, it carrys no onboard fuel - all the >energy comes from an external source, be it an electrostatic field, a >laser, or radio waves. > >> >> A spaceship is not very similar to a particle. > >They obey the same laws of physics and can be treated exactly the same. > I think you just like to argue. Jeff Root already told you very politely to shut up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. .. 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 26 Oct 2005 03:31 Henri Wilson wrote: [snip] Look! No literature citations, no derivations, just more assertions. How useful! I love doing physics via dialectic and philosophy! Math is hard...
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 26 Oct 2005 07:00
In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:00:01 GMT <4m6ul1dbvgu34f1rlplfccl12sc14j522b(a)4ax.com>: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:02:26 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>"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. > > There is no limit. It's just very hard to get even close to c > because of the energy situation which I have already explaioned. 7 TeV protons aren't close enough for you? m_p = 1.67262171 * 10^-27 kg m_p * c^2 = 1.50327743 * 10^-10 J = 938.272029 MeV (1/2) * m_p * c^2 = 469.1360145 MeV The LHC has way more than enough energy to generate superluminal photons easily. However, superluminal photons have never been observed in any accelerator. Perhaps someone from the c'=c+v crowd can tell us precisely why? SR has an answer, and judging from the many experiments conducted thus far, it's consistent with the Universe. > > > Photons and bits of matter are impinging on Earth at a whole > range of speeds, including many >c.. Two words: Cerenkov radiation. [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |