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 26 Oct 2005 22:02 HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:k7vvl15btqh19tlk88l8mam8etehecgkha(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:27:14 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:35atl15nvt1th103rf11do5dcnh42ab062(a)4ax.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". >>>> >>>>I never argued against that. >> >>I quite agree that no rocket can achieve unlimited speed relative to its >>starting point in the real universe and in an Einsteinian universe, but >>I am trying to point out that in a BaTers newtonian universe a rocket >>could exceed the speed of light. I do this by showing that the rocket >>CAN catch a slow photon. >> >>If any body with mass can catch any photon by chasing it down, then mass >>can move faster than light. > > where are the references for this velocity. Pick a spot. Any spot in space. Lets say it is 1 light hour above the suns north pole. > I gather you are saying that it is impossible for any light source to > ever catch up with its own light. No. I never said anything about a light source catching its own light. We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. As it passes us, it fires a pulse of photons back toward the east. At the same time, a rocket, moving at 0.2 c is going from west to east and it passes us. It is 'chasing' the pulse of photons. In a BaT universe, it will quickly catch the pulse because the pulse is moving at 0.1 c to the east and the rocket is moving at 0.2 c. In an Einstinian universe, it will never catch the pulse because the rocket is moving at 0.2 c and the pulse is moving at c. > > 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. The rocket is already moving at 0.2 c. We don't have to worry about how it got up to c. >>>>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 can you be sure? > > Every time you move you change the relative velocities of photons > raching you. In a BaT universe, that is correct. In an Einstinian universe, you change the energy (frequency and wavelength) of the photons (as you see them), but not their velocity. >>No evidence of sub/super luminal photons has ever been found. >> >>> How would we know? >> >>When you ask me such questions, it sounds like you are not sure. > > We aren't sufficiently sensitive to detect individual photons. It isn't required. We can capture large groups of them on a piece of film, after they have passed through a grating. >>> That is not the original problem. >> >>The point is that in a universe where c+v and c-v photons exist, there >>is no basis for 'limiting' mass to less than the speed of light as light >>has no speed limit. >> >>Logic says that if photons could move at a speed different from c in >>unstressed vacuum, then mass would have no speed limit. > > You must try to make meaningful statements. > > Speed relative to what? To anything. > Speed LIMIT relative to what? To any reference you choose to use. Use the same reference point for both the mass and the photons. >>It is because photons move at c that mass can never reach c. > > relative to what? You really are hung up on relatives, aren't you? Pick a point. Just stick with the same point in both cases. It doesn't really matter which point you choose. >>>>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. >> >>On the contrary, I have no objection. I am quite willing to support you >>when you are right. But in this case, the point he was supporting you >>upon is one upon which I had no disagreement with you. It also was >>unimportant to the point I was trying to make. > > You don't even understand the problem. Perhaps, by now, YOU do understand my point. >>>>> 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. >> >>As a qualified expert, perhaps you can tell me if the rumor is really >>true that most psychologist go into psychology because they think they >>are themselves crazy and want to know how to hide it? > > Psychology classes are invariably top heavy with mixed up, hormonally > unbalanced females, most of whom drop out when they come up against the > inevitable course in stats. That is as close to a 'dodged the question' as I have seen in some time. >>> Most come under the heading of 'would-be-if-I-could-be'. >> >>Those are usually recognizable by their claims to have found >>undiscovered flaws in 'accepted' physics. >> >>Not that such claims are necessarily irrational, but that the lengths to >>which they go to support their delusions are extraordinary. >> >>The biggest clue is that they are NOT asking for others to help them >>find the flaws in their idea. > > Bob, I don't really care if you spend the rest of your life deluding > yourself into believing that a vertical light beam becomes a diagional > light beam in a moving frame. > I know it is not true. I have demonstrated why. > If you are too stupid or stubborn to run my program and try to > understand it that is not my problem. Henri, I helped you fix some problems with another one of your programs. I do my best to avoid being obnoxious or insulting to you. Sometimes my tongue gets very sore from my biting it to avoid saying things that your comments beg for me to say. >>.... >>>>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. >> >>Would it were so. Real physics is not based on willusions. > > And vertical light beams don't become diagonal one. What does this have to do with 0.2 c rockets catching 0.1 c photons in a BaT universe? >>Real physics is based on observable, identifiable, verifiable phenomina. >> >>Theories must be consistent with all data. >> >>BaT must be continually propped up with new w-theories as >>inconsistencies are pointed out. It started with the invention of >>'extinction'. >> >>I have still not heard a mechanism for extinction that will speed up the >>c- v photons. > > That's because you have no imagination and little understanding of > physics. Ad hominem attack is a poor answer to a scientific question. Such an uncalled for statements calls for an insulting rejoinder. I decline to decend to that level. -- 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 26 Oct 2005 22:12 bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in news:Xns96FBD66EED0EAWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139: > We see a laser going to the west, by our 'spot'. It is going at 0.8 c. > That should have been 0.9 c. -- 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: "Androcles" <Androcles@ on 26 Oct 2005 23:55 "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:be20m1df6j6gc95am2vuech2vm6r41cb0o(a)4ax.com... | On 26 Oct 2005 14:19:26 -0700, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)hia.no> | wrote: | | > | >Henri Wilson skrev: | | >> 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. If Paul B. Doppler of Kristiansand can tell me what the wavelength of this oscillator: http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html is in units of distance (inches, metres, miles, whatever) I'll explain shift to him. He can't, of course. Agder College must be the last place on Earth to send a student, tusselader are appointed assistant professors. Maybe the gnomes of Zurich get a kick out of it. Androcles.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 27 Oct 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote on 26 Oct 2005 17:46:57 -0700 <1130374017.761097.226490(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: > > 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. Erm...better recheck your calcs. If E_c = 1/2 m_p c^2 = 469.136 * 10^6 eV, and E = 7 * 10^12 eV, then v_n/c = sqrt(E/E_c) = 122.15, or v_n=3.6645 * 10^10 m/s, where v_n is the Newtonian velocity of the particle. Of course since LHC specifies a 11.245 kHz signal for a circumference of 26658.883 m, that gives a speed of 299779139.335 m/s, which is c - 13318.665 m/s. For Newtonian theory, that's a lot of missing energy. For SR, that gives a gamma corrective factor of 106. It's a bit off, but the frequency is only specified to 5 places anyway. https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Eric Gisse on 27 Oct 2005 00:26
The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In sci.physics, Eric Gisse > <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> > wrote > on 26 Oct 2005 17:46:57 -0700 > <1130374017.761097.226490(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: > > > > 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. > > Erm...better recheck your calcs. Absolutely, positively, physically wrong, without a doubt. It is wrong by an amazing number of magnitudes. So wrong that it is impressive in its' own right. But that is my point, such a velocity is absurd. Henri repeatedly asserts Newton is correct, so I simply provide yet another example for him. He said nothing about the 7 TeV energy source being incorrect... [snip] |