How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 May 2010 17:58 On Mon, 24 May 2010 20:41:21 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >[...] > >>>> >>>> Hahahha! ...and how were the OW speeds of the gammas actually measured? >>> >>>With photon counters and time gates. Why? >> >> :) >> not very accurate, eh? > >Why would you make the claim that they 'aren't very accurate' if you've >never worked with them? > >> >>>> >To attempt to model this with any sort of ballistic >>>> >theory is EXTREMELY difficult, as the angle between the gammas (in the >>>> >lab) varies strongly with the speed of the pi0 as it decays -- Galilean >>>> >kinematics simply does not work. >>>> >>>> If a golf ball breaks in half when in flight, what would you say about >>>> the speeds of the two halves. >>> >>>They are different, in the ground frame. >>>And this is quite measurable, as the arrival times at planes >>>equidistant from the golf ball at break-up are very different. >>>Compare this with the contrary result with gammas from the pion. >> >> There's probably some kind of 'explosion' as well. >> >>>> Tom, it is now obvious that Einstein's silly theory has to rely on >>>> fringe experiments like this just to maintain its existence in an >>>> increasingly skeptical scientific world. >>> >>>I love this: "fringe experiments". As in, "Any experiment that is >>>specifically aimed to test a prediction of relativity and in fact >>>shows support for relativity should be discredited as 'fringe' >>>because... well, just because." >> >> 'Fringe' means 'right on the edge of credibility'. > >And why is it that people who know relativity is wrong are the only people >who find evidence for relativity to be 'fringe' ? When are you going to say something intelligent? Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 25 May 2010 18:04 On Tue, 25 May 2010 06:57:00 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 24, 6:53�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:36:26 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >Note also that the measurements of the gammas are consistent with the SR >> >> >kinematics of the pi0 decay. >> >> >> Hahahha! ...and how were the OW speeds of the gammas actually measured? >> >> >With photon counters and time gates. Why? >> >> :) >> not very accurate, eh? > >Actually, quite accurate. The precision, and how that is determined, >is described in the paper. You should read it sometime, rather than >just making stuff up about it without reading it. Not at all accurate.... >> >> >> >To attempt to model this with any sort of ballistic >> >> >theory is EXTREMELY difficult, as the angle between the gammas (in the lab) >> >> >varies strongly with the speed of the pi0 as it decays -- Galilean kinematics >> >> >simply does not work. >> >> >> If a golf ball breaks in half when in flight, what would you say about the >> >> speeds of the two halves. >> >> >They are different, in the ground frame. >> >And this is quite measurable, as the arrival times at planes >> >equidistant from the golf ball at break-up are very different. >> >Compare this with the contrary result with gammas from the pion. >> >> There's probably some kind of 'explosion' as well. > >Which makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. That's the whole >point of conservation of momentum, that the quantity is conserved in a >closed system REGARDLESS of the nature of the interactions within the >system. Thus momentum would be conserved for the two halves of the >golf ball, whether they separated by explosion or by a gentle push- >off. True, but it affects the angles at which the halves might fly off. >This wouldn't at all change the results that the arrival times in the >case of the golf ball are observably different, and the arrival times >in the case of pi0->2gamma are identical. ....arrival times where? >> >> Tom, it is now obvious that Einstein's silly theory has to rely on fringe >> >> experiments like this just to maintain its existence in an increasingly >> >> skeptical scientific world. >> >> >I love this: "fringe experiments". As in, "Any experiment that is >> >specifically aimed to test a prediction of relativity and in fact >> >shows support for relativity should be discredited as 'fringe' >> >because... well, just because." >> >> 'Fringe' means 'right on the edge of credibility'. > >Alrighty then, as in "Any experiment that is specifically aimed to >test a prediction of relativity and in fact shows support for >relativity should be discredited as 'right on the edge of credibility' >because... well, just because." ALL experiments that are claimed to support Einstein are on the fringe. Not one is believable Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 25 May 2010 19:40 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] >>Why would you make the claim that they 'aren't very accurate' if you've >>never worked with them? [...] >>And why is it that people who know relativity is wrong are the only people >>who find evidence for relativity to be 'fringe' ? [...] Its' ok Henri, I already know the answers. I just like making you dance. Dance again, puppet. Say something silly.
From: eric gisse on 25 May 2010 19:43 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > > ALL experiments that are claimed to support Einstein are on the fringe. > > Not one is believable Funny how nobody really agrees with you. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: Henry Wilson DSc on 26 May 2010 04:19
On Tue, 25 May 2010 16:43:56 -0700, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote: >..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >[...] > >> >> ALL experiments that are claimed to support Einstein are on the fringe. >> >> Not one is believable > >Funny how nobody really agrees with you. When are you going to make a statement that is not based on faith? Henry Wilson... ........A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability. |