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 26 Oct 2005 18:20 On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:21:17 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message >news:1130278175.696539.202770(a)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. > >I hadn't been following that part of the thread >and using an accelerator as the rocket motor can >give relativistic exhaust speed but at the price >of efficiency. That may be worthwhile if you have >unlimited energy, e.g. solar power or matter/anti- >matter reaction, but limited reaction mass. very limited. The whole thing would weight quite a bit too. > >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: Henri Wilson on 26 Oct 2005 18:21 On 26 Oct 2005 05:36:39 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> Jeff Root already told you very politely to >> shut up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. > >I said no such thing. Eric knows that I didn't say that, >Bob knows I didn't say that, George knows I didn't say >that, and I know I didn't say that. > >You lie and blame the lie on someone else. You are an >intelligent adult, but you have the emotional maturity >and morals of a four-year-old. 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 26 Oct 2005 19:03 On 26 Oct 2005 14:19:26 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> wrote: > >Henri Wilson skrev: >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:40:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> There are other factors to consider. >> > >> >Such as? >> >> day/night temperature variation. >> Star shape >> Local extinction >> Long term extinction, if any. > >You are funny, Henri. :-) >You claim that you by assuming that Algol is a star >orbited by a large planet can make the BaT predict >the observed light curve. >(A ridiculous assumption, of course.) > >Yet you claim that there are so many other unknown >factors to consider that you cannot make the BaT >predict the correct light curve. > >Why did you then claim that you had made the BaT produce >the correct light curve? Have a look for yourself. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg >> >> >> >> 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. > >..because the effect is way too small to matter? it depends how you define 'too small'. > >> >>>>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. > >What the hell are you fussing about? >Which truth haven't I accepted? >The obvious truth which I have stated >over and over: > Different parts of the star have different > radial velocity _because the star is rotating_. > So what? thats' not the point. Diffrent layers of the star also has quite different radial velocities particularly if the star is in tidal lock or thereabouts. ....and not all stars are likely to be identical to our sun. .. > >> >>>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. > >I know you are wrong because I know something >about stars. YOU are ignorant, and make up whatever >ridiculous physical processes that suite you. >You are not even guessing. You are fantasizing. Based on BaTh predictions, there is now good evidence that IR in many stars comes from a lower layer than the visible. >> >So what are the factors to be considered? >> > >> >The truth is simple, Henri. >> >The BaT is falsified. >> >Again. >> >> Androcles is definitely right about you. > >Quite. >The ultimate argument. >The great genius Androcles says I am wrong. > >Nothing more to discuss, then. I'm sure he will agree. > >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 26 Oct 2005 20:27 Henri Wilson wrote: [snip] > > I agree with that on energy grounds. No self contained 'rocket' can have > enough energy to get beyond c let alone catch previously emitted light.. I base > that on E=mc^2.....which has nothing to do with SR. Yet you are abjectly incapable of producing a classical derivation of E=mc^2. I can't wait to see how you justify not producing the derivation for the 7th time! [snip]
From: Eric Gisse on 26 Oct 2005 20:46
Henri Wilson wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:00:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > > >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. > > it's up there. proton mass = 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms 1 electron volt = 1.60217646 × 10-19 joules E = 1/2mv^2 v = sqrt(2E/m) v = sqrt(2*7TeV*1.602x10^-19J/eV*1x10^12eV/TeV / 1.672x10^-27 kg) v = 1.34x10^21 m/s, or only 4.7 thousand billion c. How is that possible, Henri? Oh right. "reverse field bubble", which you are incapable of deriving from your theory yet which explains everything. > > > > >[.sigsnip] > > > 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". |