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 14 Nov 2005 23:19 On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 02:11:53 GMT, "Black Knight" <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message >news:o40in11kuvc1n85k3mls0drg34jt18ev7c(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:45:35 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)hiadeletethis.no> wrote: >> >>>Eric Gisse wrote: >>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> >>>>>I think E = mc^2 follows from Maxwell's equations, >>>>>EM-radiation has momentum. >>>> >>>> >>>> That seemed highly reasonable to me. >>>> >>>> Though I was hoping for Henri to do it instead of you. >>> >>>No point in hoping for the impossible. >>>It is thoroughly documented that Henri couldn't do it. >> >> I am more interested in the other question I asked. >> >> Has anyone ever shown that ALL the mass of an atom can be converted to >> mc^2 >> energy? >> >> It has probably been proved only for e+/e- pairs and for nuclear binding >> energy. >> >> So far, no one has been able to convert a whole atom to energy. >> >> >> >>> >>>Paul >> >> >> HW. >Why are you asking the tusselad? >He doesn't know what a wavelength is, let alone any physics. >Androcles. > he'll probably go for another long holiday to avoid the embarassment of his latest Sagnac mistake. 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 15 Nov 2005 01:00 In sci.physics, Black Knight <Androcles(a)castle.edu> wrote on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:42:35 GMT <%C%df.15005$Es4.5533(a)fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message > news:fjhl43-8th.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >> In sci.physics, Black Knight >> <Androcles(a)castle.edu> >> wrote >> on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:54:14 GMT >> <q%Sdf.23782$MD5.10477(a)fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>: >>> >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in >>> message >>> news:id1l43-6bg.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >>>> In sci.physics, HW@..(Henri Wilson) >>>> <HW@> >>>> wrote >>>> on Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:28:41 GMT >>>> <31jfn1546p3ru42u224idk8pkur7l4ktf1(a)4ax.com>: >>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:06:36 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In article <Xns970D1E95F2849WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>, bz >>>>>><bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> writes: >>>>>>>"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi(a)gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>>>news:1131855605.794683.277520(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> bz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I understand the implications, it should be easy to tell the >>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You should have seen by now that Henri has zero interest in testing >>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Negative. >>>>>>> >>>>>>Imaginary. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot. Learn the facts. >>>> >>>> And these are....? >>>> >>>> Point us at a website. One possibility, for instance, is >>>> >>>> http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm >>>> >>>> which apparently contemplates a c'=c+v hypothesis when >>>> it comes to binary stars. It's far from proof and >>>> doesn't even begin to contemplate various easily >>>> observed artifacts such as spectrographic data; >>>> nor does it have any actual data to speak of. >>>> >>>> But it's a start. >>> >>> $1,000,000,000,000 in your pocket is no money to speak of, but it's >>> a penny for every photon in the light from V 1493 Aql... merely a start. >>> Some of us know when we are wealthy. >>> Androcles. >>> >> >> OK. Any other stars that show this c'=c+v phenom? This is only >> one out of a million. > > Nova Herculis 1934. > Algol. > d-Ceph. > Polaris. > What do you want, a list of all known variables? Plus orbital parameters and such, if you like. :-P > READ Sekerin. Look at diagram 2, its as simple > as it could be. Slow light passes fast light > if the start of the race is far enough away. That is the c'=c+v hypothesis, yes. > > *I* predicted V1493 Aql in 1987, I just didn't know when or where it would > happen. I predict another just like it, too. > > Some of us work with REAL, EXISTING data, others go hunting > for black holes where bright green flying elephants lay their eggs. > That's the difference between a scientist and a fuckwit. Anything particularly wrong with the list at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/binpulstable.html ? :-) I'll admit I'm going to have to find the actual data but it's clear there's some interesting stars out there. > > Androcles. > > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 15 Nov 2005 03:42 On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:00:06 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:o40in11kuvc1n85k3mls0drg34jt18ev7c@ >4ax.com: > >> I am more interested in the other question I asked. >> >> Has anyone ever shown that ALL the mass of an atom can be converted to >mc^2 >> energy? >> >> It has probably been proved only for e+/e- pairs and for nuclear binding >> energy. >> >> So far, no one has been able to convert a whole atom to energy. > >Not too hard to do. Build one atom of anti hydrogen with a positron and an >antiproton; collide it with one atom of normal hydrogen and you have just >converted TWO whole atoms into energy. Has anyone done that? 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: donstockbauer on 15 Nov 2005 07:49 Not a ghost of a chance of understanding sticks in water are not really bent just because they look bent, I suppose? Didn't think so. ****************** They are bent if you stick an actually bent stick in the water.
From: bz on 15 Nov 2005 07:45
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:mr7jn1hbcrbnkuibm8r91bncqirfueqqgg(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:00:06 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:o40in11kuvc1n85k3mls0drg34jt18ev7c@ >>4ax.com: >> >>> I am more interested in the other question I asked. >>> >>> Has anyone ever shown that ALL the mass of an atom can be converted to >>mc^2 >>> energy? >>> >>> It has probably been proved only for e+/e- pairs and for nuclear >>> binding energy. >>> >>> So far, no one has been able to convert a whole atom to energy. >> >>Not too hard to do. Build one atom of anti hydrogen with a positron and >>an antiproton; collide it with one atom of normal hydrogen and you have >>just converted TWO whole atoms into energy. > > Has anyone done that? [quote http://ppd.fnal.gov/experiments/hbar/] E862: Observation of Antihydrogen Atoms Antihydrogen production has been observed at Fermilab. Experiment 862 collected data in 1996 and 1997. A total of 99 antihydrogen atoms were observed, with essentially no background. The results were published in Physical Review Letters in the spring of 1998.[unquote] [quote http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/anti_hydrogen_020918.h tml] European scientists say they have created enough antihydrogen -- a type of the mirror-image, antimatter stuff that fictionally powers spaceships on Star Trek -- to test a widely held basic model of the universe. While antihydrogen has been made before, the more than 50,000 atoms created at the CERN particle accelerator in Geneva are ``by far, the most produced," said Jeffrey Hangst, a leader of the ATHENA collaboration, one of two groups of physicists working on antihydrogen at CERN. .... In the latest experiments, ATHENA researchers used the CERN accelerator to create antiprotons and electromagnetically trapped them in a vacuum chamber. A radioactive source, meanwhile, was used to create positrons, which were held in a separate trap. The antiprotons were then fed into the pool of positrons, where the two combined to form antihydrogen. The antimatter was short-lived; Hangst said it was annihilated when it bumped into normal matter. Detectors picked up the unique signatures of antimatter as it was destroyed, he said. [unquote] close enough? -- 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 |