Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 18:01 On Apr 9, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 3:28 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 9, 2:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 8, 9:09 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 8 Apr, 15:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 10:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > It's awfully difficult to misinterpret the numerical value of a > > > > > > > measurement and whether it agrees with the numerical value of another > > > > > > > measurement. > > > > > > > No, because if I say relative to me A is moving at 10kmh and B is > > > > > > moving at 20kmh, and you say that relative to you A is moving at > > > > > > 20kmh, and B moving at 30kmh, then despite the numerical difference of > > > > > > speeds we both agree about the movement of A relative to B. > > > > > > But that is not what happens. > > > > > For example, if I see a car traveling west at 10 kmh, and a car > > > > > traveling east at 35 kmh, then you have the expectation that, to a > > > > > passenger riding in the car traveling east, the other car is traveling > > > > > 45 kmh west. > > > > > But in fact, it is not traveling at 45 kmh west to a passenger in that > > > > > car. > > > > > It is traveling at something close to that, but only approximately. > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > The bottom line is, the basic sum rule you've been taught for relative > > > > > velocities is a LIE. > > > > > << The main types of particle combinations used at RHIC > > > > are p + p, d + Au, Cu + Cu and Au + Au. The projectiles > > > > typically travel at a speed of 99.995% of the speed of light > > > > in vacuum. For Au + Au collision, the center-of-mass > > > > energy \sqrt{s_{NN}} is typically 200 GeV > > > > (or 100 GeV per nucleus); >> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider > > > > Yes, and the energy adds. The velocities don't. You DO know the > > > difference, don't you? > > > No, I suppose not. > > > Wouldn't a calculation from the relative velocities > > demonstrate your point better than an insult? > > > Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, > > sentiment, or distrust of established fact. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > > A couple of your fellow Lorentz ether theorists > > seem to be having the same problem so perhaps > > it is worth looking into. > > > Sue... > > > > > > PD > > That's fine. > > For starters, your quote above is incorrect and needs to be updated. > See your own wiki link for the correction. The energy is 100 GeV per > *nucleon*, not per *nucleus*. Thank you. I just flagged it for update. > > A gold nucleus has an atomic mass of 196.96655 amu, and an amu is > 931.494028 MeV. > So the gold nucleus rest energy is 183.473165 GeV. > Therefore a gold nucleus with energy 100 GeV/nucleon corresponds a > relativistic gamma factor of 107.354. > From this, the speed of the nucleon can be calculated from beta^2 = 1 > - 1/gamma^2, from which we find that beta = 0.999957, in agreement > with the number that's in the wiki article. > > For two particles closing each at beta in the lab, the relative > velocity is given by > beta_rel = 2beta/(1+beta^2) = 99.999999906% of c. That corrects for *our* observation, not the particle's observation. Colliers would be no better than single beams otherwise. > > The center of mass energy squared is given by the relation > (E1+E2)^2 - |p1+p2|^2, where the first sum is a scalar sum and the > second is the scalar magnitude of a vector sum. Here, since p2 = -p1, > the vector sum trivially adds to zero, and so leaves only the first > term, which is (100 GeV + 100 GeV)^2 = (200 GeV)^2. Hence the center > of mass energy is 200 GeV, while the relative velocity between the two > is 99.999999906% of c. That is calculated, not measured. I hear the Alpine mountaineer that volunteer to ride the ion with a police radar had to cancel due to illness in his dairy. > > All of these calculational formulas are found in public archives, > which you should take care to bookmark, read, and learn how to use, > since it is plain that you don't know what you're doing when you look > at a wiki article and incorrectly quote it, let alone derive incorrect > conclusions from it. If you need help, let me point you to http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-kinematics.pdf Oh! The nukeular-option. Jackson. I don't argue much with him. Still the collision formula from a lab frame doesn't help parlour tricks like pole and barn Replace the CW ion with a pole. Replace the CCW ion with a barn and they get the same gamma. If they were not seen to fit at rest. They will not be seen to fit in the RHIC or LHC lab frame. Sue...
From: PD on 9 Apr 2010 18:10 On Apr 9, 5:01 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 9, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 3:28 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Apr 9, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 2:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 9, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 9:09 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8 Apr, 15:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 10:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It's awfully difficult to misinterpret the numerical value of a > > > > > > > > measurement and whether it agrees with the numerical value of another > > > > > > > > measurement. > > > > > > > > No, because if I say relative to me A is moving at 10kmh and B is > > > > > > > moving at 20kmh, and you say that relative to you A is moving at > > > > > > > 20kmh, and B moving at 30kmh, then despite the numerical difference of > > > > > > > speeds we both agree about the movement of A relative to B. > > > > > > > But that is not what happens. > > > > > > For example, if I see a car traveling west at 10 kmh, and a car > > > > > > traveling east at 35 kmh, then you have the expectation that, to a > > > > > > passenger riding in the car traveling east, the other car is traveling > > > > > > 45 kmh west. > > > > > > But in fact, it is not traveling at 45 kmh west to a passenger in that > > > > > > car. > > > > > > It is traveling at something close to that, but only approximately. > > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > > The bottom line is, the basic sum rule you've been taught for relative > > > > > > velocities is a LIE. > > > > > > << The main types of particle combinations used at RHIC > > > > > are p + p, d + Au, Cu + Cu and Au + Au. The projectiles > > > > > typically travel at a speed of 99.995% of the speed of light > > > > > in vacuum. For Au + Au collision, the center-of-mass > > > > > energy \sqrt{s_{NN}} is typically 200 GeV > > > > > (or 100 GeV per nucleus); >> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider > > > > > Yes, and the energy adds. The velocities don't. You DO know the > > > > difference, don't you? > > > > No, I suppose not. > > > > Wouldn't a calculation from the relative velocities > > > demonstrate your point better than an insult? > > > > Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, > > > sentiment, or distrust of established fact. > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > > > > > A couple of your fellow Lorentz ether theorists > > > seem to be having the same problem so perhaps > > > it is worth looking into. > > > > Sue... > > > > > > > PD > > > That's fine. > > > For starters, your quote above is incorrect and needs to be updated. > > See your own wiki link for the correction. The energy is 100 GeV per > > *nucleon*, not per *nucleus*. > > Thank you. I just flagged it for update. > > > > > A gold nucleus has an atomic mass of 196.96655 amu, and an amu is > > 931.494028 MeV. > > So the gold nucleus rest energy is 183.473165 GeV. > > Therefore a gold nucleus with energy 100 GeV/nucleon corresponds a > > relativistic gamma factor of 107.354. > > From this, the speed of the nucleon can be calculated from beta^2 = 1 > > - 1/gamma^2, from which we find that beta = 0.999957, in agreement > > with the number that's in the wiki article. > > > For two particles closing each at beta in the lab, the relative > > velocity is given by > > beta_rel = 2beta/(1+beta^2) = 99.999999906% of c. > > That corrects for *our* observation, not > the particle's observation. No, that's not correct. The *relative* velocity is the velocity of one particle as seen by the other. This is not the velocities of the particles as seen in the lab, which has already been pointed out is 99.9957% of c. > > Colliers would be no better than single > beams otherwise. Relative velocity is not the figure of merit, and not the reason to build colliders vs fixed target machines. Center of mass energy is. And I showed you how to do that calculation, and I also gave you a reference that shows you the formulas you should use, including applications in both cases. Please read them. Note that in a fixed target experiment, one of the p's (say, p2) is zero, and so the vector sum of the momentum is not zero, and so the center of mass energy is reduced, compared to a collider experiment where |p1+p2| = 0. > > > > > The center of mass energy squared is given by the relation > > (E1+E2)^2 - |p1+p2|^2, where the first sum is a scalar sum and the > > second is the scalar magnitude of a vector sum. Here, since p2 = -p1, > > the vector sum trivially adds to zero, and so leaves only the first > > term, which is (100 GeV + 100 GeV)^2 = (200 GeV)^2. Hence the center > > of mass energy is 200 GeV, while the relative velocity between the two > > is 99.999999906% of c. > > That is calculated, not measured. No, it is measured. It is measured by virtue of the fact that the measured cross sections and decay distributions are identical in cases where the relative velocity of the particles in a collider environment is identical to the relative velocity of the particles in a different fixed target environment. Relativistic kinematics has been experimentally tested and confirmed through *measurement*. It is not just hypothetical stuff. > I hear the > Alpine mountaineer that volunteer to ride > the ion with a police radar had to cancel due > to illness in his dairy. > > > > > All of these calculational formulas are found in public archives, > > which you should take care to bookmark, read, and learn how to use, > > since it is plain that you don't know what you're doing when you look > > at a wiki article and incorrectly quote it, let alone derive incorrect > > conclusions from it. If you need help, let me point you to > > http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-kinematics.pdf > > Oh! The nukeular-option. Jackson. That is not from Jackson, though it borrows from it. It is a compendium compiled by the PDG group. It is standard relativistic kinematics. If you want another source that gives a second opinion about relativistic kinematics, I'm happy to suggest a number of books. The one by Don Perkins is a good start, as is the one by Ferbel and Das. > I don't argue much with him. > > Still the collision formula from a lab frame > doesn't help parlour tricks like pole and barn > > Replace the CW ion with a pole. Replace the CCW > ion with a barn and they get the same gamma. > > If they were not seen to fit at rest. > They will not be seen to fit in the > RHIC or LHC lab frame. > > Sue...
From: Androcles on 9 Apr 2010 18:15 <paparios(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bdbd336a-a8ec-43f3-9ee0-fc02d1baf355(a)r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On 9 abr, 15:39, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 9 Apr, 15:24, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 8 abr, 21:59, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On 8 Apr, 14:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > It's not about "faith over evidence". The evidence is meaningless >> > > without interpretation. The real question, which is the same as it >> > > ever was in human history, is *how* we are to interpret evidence, not >> > > *whether* we are to interpret it. >> >> > Let us explore this for a moment, in the form of a very simple >> > gedanken (I have used this on several occasions). No frame of >> > references are needed. >> >> > You are aboard a space ship in intergalactic space (meaning you are >> > very far away from gravitational effects). While in this condition, >> > you do not feel any force acting on your body (you are weightless >> > floating inside your space ship). Also, you have aboard a small window >> > and you are looking through it and, of course you see just a complete >> > darkness, without galaxies, stars or any other stellar object in your >> > surroundings. >> >> > Suddenly, you start to see, far away, an object which, with the help >> > of a telescope, you identify as another space ship (by its use of >> > flashing red and green beacons). The object appears to be approaching >> > your location. Now, which of the following assertions is true and >> > which is false. >> >> > a)Your space ship is not moving and the other space ship is >> > approaching at a speed v (closing speed measured with a laser gun). >> > b)Your space ship is moving at a speed v and the other space ship is >> > not moving. >> > c)Your space ship is moving at a speed 0.4v towards the other space >> > ship, which itself is moving at a speed 0.6v towards you. >> > d)There are infinite solutions of relative speeds satisfying the >> > observation. >> > e)All of the previous assertions are true, since speed is a frame >> > dependent variable. >> >> > So for escape from this multitude of compatible solutions, you have to >> > choose one of them, which is equivalent to select one of the frames of >> > reference to calculate the different physical quantities. So for you, >> > it is easier to select a given point (x0,y0,z0) and given axes (x,y,z) >> > somewhere inside your ship, as that frame of reference which allows >> > you to discard all alternatives except (a). >> >> I would suggest a sixth solution. That the only "true" and "real" >> statement that can be made, from the evidence available, is that you >> and the other spaceship are converging positions at a relative speed >> of 'v'. > > Which in itself is choosing by de facto a frame of reference: x1=(x'1+vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -- papabozo Ref: news:90f88419-b50e-445b-826a-0136aff5f79e(a)5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com ======================================== Bwahahahahahaha! x'1 = (x1-vt)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) x1-vt = x'1 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) x1 = x'1*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + vt Papa bozo is too stupid to manage simple schoolboy algebra!
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 18:24 On Apr 9, 5:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 3:53 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 4:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 9, 3:00 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 9 Apr, 15:45, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 8, 8:59 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > So for example, if you're talking about the frequency of an audio > > > > > > source, then you isolate the Doppler effects and correct for them, > > > > > > leaving the "true" value for the source frequency. > > > > > > This is not removing an "effect". By "true" source frequency, you are > > > > > simply stating what the frequency is as observed in the reference > > > > > frame in which the source is at rest. > > > > > No I'm not. As I started out by saying, the frequency of the source > > > > can be measured directly by Ladar, or even high-speed cameras, even > > > > when the observer is moving relative to the source. And for sure, if > > > > you were at rest relative to the source, then the microphone > > > > measurement would accord with the Ladar measurement. But the point is > > > > that the Ladar measurement is the same *even when you are moving > > > > relative to the source*. > > > > > The conclusion to reach from this is not that the Ladar is merely > > > > measuing the "rest frequency", but rather that the frequency measured > > > > when at rest is the *real* source frequency, and if one wants to > > > > measure the source frequency with sound, then one must account for the > > > > dynamics of sound when trying to ascertain the source frequency from > > > > the received frequency. > > > > > It is the same with this length contraction. Unless the object is > > > > mechanically contracting, then the explanation *must* lay in the > > > > dynamics of the electromagnetic interaction *between* the two objects. > > > > There is no other explanation that has been offered, except to assert > > > > plainly (and unconvincingly) that it is not due to the interaction. > > > ================ > > > > This is simply not the case. I'll give you another example. If you > > > take a string and rub a balloon on it so that it builds up a static > > > charge, the string will have an electric field around it. An observer > > > at rest relative to the string will observe no magnetic field around > > > it at all (e.g. there will be no magnetic forces on any test charge in > > > the region). However, for an observer moving relative to the string, > > > the electric field will be altered and there will be a magnetic field > > > now present. Keep in mind that there is NOTHING interacting with the > > > string that differs between these two cases. > > > Your "observer" is interacting with the string > > exerting forces 10^32 times greater than gravity. ============= > > > That is no way compares to pole and barn > > which are neutral object moving inertially. > > Interesting. So according to you, the laws of electrodynamics cannot > be subject to the principle of relativity because no situation > involving electrodynamics could involve inertial frames of reference, I will make you a deal. I will keep my hands off your keyboard if you will keep your hands off my keyboard. There is a formal way to analyse your thought experiment and it won't make your argument. But don't take my word for it: "The force on a moving charge" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node127.html > and this in turn is because you believe that to look at something from > an inertial reference frame, the objects examined in them must also be > moving inertially. Back to mind reading? Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist). http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html [PD's psychic demonstration follows] > > Then by extension, the laws of Newtonian mechanics cannot be subject > to the principle of relativity *either*, because anything that is > obeying Newton's second law F=ma will likely have a nonzero > acceleration and will therefore not be moving inertially. > > Therefore, according to you, if the principle of relativity applies to > any laws of physics at all, you'll be hornswaggled if you know what > they would be. > > Ah. > > > > > <<Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria > > of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, > > controlled, repeatable scientific experiments. > > Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, > > stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious > > anecdotes. Genuine scientific literature is either > > ignored or misinterpreted.>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > > Sue... >
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 18:46
On Apr 9, 6:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 5:01 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 5:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 9, 3:28 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 9, 2:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 9, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 9:09 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 8 Apr, 15:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 10:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It's awfully difficult to misinterpret the numerical value of a > > > > > > > > > measurement and whether it agrees with the numerical value of another > > > > > > > > > measurement. > > > > > > > > > No, because if I say relative to me A is moving at 10kmh and B is > > > > > > > > moving at 20kmh, and you say that relative to you A is moving at > > > > > > > > 20kmh, and B moving at 30kmh, then despite the numerical difference of > > > > > > > > speeds we both agree about the movement of A relative to B. > > > > > > > > But that is not what happens. > > > > > > > For example, if I see a car traveling west at 10 kmh, and a car > > > > > > > traveling east at 35 kmh, then you have the expectation that, to a > > > > > > > passenger riding in the car traveling east, the other car is traveling > > > > > > > 45 kmh west. > > > > > > > But in fact, it is not traveling at 45 kmh west to a passenger in that > > > > > > > car. > > > > > > > It is traveling at something close to that, but only approximately. > > > > > > > ========================== > > > > > > > > The bottom line is, the basic sum rule you've been taught for relative > > > > > > > velocities is a LIE. > > > > > > > << The main types of particle combinations used at RHIC > > > > > > are p + p, d + Au, Cu + Cu and Au + Au. The projectiles > > > > > > typically travel at a speed of 99.995% of the speed of light > > > > > > in vacuum. For Au + Au collision, the center-of-mass > > > > > > energy \sqrt{s_{NN}} is typically 200 GeV > > > > > > (or 100 GeV per nucleus); >> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider > > > > > > Yes, and the energy adds. The velocities don't. You DO know the > > > > > difference, don't you? > > > > > No, I suppose not. > > > > > Wouldn't a calculation from the relative velocities > > > > demonstrate your point better than an insult? > > > > > Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, > > > > sentiment, or distrust of established fact. > > >http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > > > > A couple of your fellow Lorentz ether theorists > > > > seem to be having the same problem so perhaps > > > > it is worth looking into. > > > > > Sue... > > > > > > > > PD > > > > That's fine. > > > > For starters, your quote above is incorrect and needs to be updated. > > > See your own wiki link for the correction. The energy is 100 GeV per > > > *nucleon*, not per *nucleus*. > > > Thank you. I just flagged it for update. > > > > A gold nucleus has an atomic mass of 196.96655 amu, and an amu is > > > 931.494028 MeV. > > > So the gold nucleus rest energy is 183.473165 GeV. > > > Therefore a gold nucleus with energy 100 GeV/nucleon corresponds a > > > relativistic gamma factor of 107.354. > > > From this, the speed of the nucleon can be calculated from beta^2 = 1 > > > - 1/gamma^2, from which we find that beta = 0.999957, in agreement > > > with the number that's in the wiki article. > > > > For two particles closing each at beta in the lab, the relative > > > velocity is given by > > > beta_rel = 2beta/(1+beta^2) = 99.999999906% of c. > > > That corrects for *our* observation, not > > the particle's observation. > > No, that's not correct. The *relative* velocity is the velocity of one > particle as seen by the other. This is not the velocities of the > particles as seen in the lab, which has already been pointed out is > 99.9957% of c. > > > > > Colliers would be no better than single > > beams otherwise. > > Relative velocity is not the figure of merit, and not the reason to > build colliders vs fixed target machines. Center of mass energy is. > And I showed you how to do that calculation, and I also gave you a > reference that shows you the formulas you should use, including > applications in both cases. Please read them. Note that in a fixed > target experiment, one of the p's (say, p2) is zero, and so the vector > sum of the momentum is not zero, and so the center of mass energy is > reduced, compared to a collider experiment where |p1+p2| = 0. > > > > > > The center of mass energy squared is given by the relation > > > (E1+E2)^2 - |p1+p2|^2, where the first sum is a scalar sum and the > > > second is the scalar magnitude of a vector sum. Here, since p2 = -p1, > > > the vector sum trivially adds to zero, and so leaves only the first > > > term, which is (100 GeV + 100 GeV)^2 = (200 GeV)^2. Hence the center > > > of mass energy is 200 GeV, while the relative velocity between the two > > > is 99.999999906% of c. > > > That is calculated, not measured. > ================ > No, it is measured. It is measured by virtue of the fact that the > measured cross sections and decay distributions are identical in cases > where the relative velocity of the particles in a collider environment > is identical to the relative velocity of the particles in a different > fixed target environment. Relativistic kinematics has been > experimentally tested and confirmed through *measurement*. It is not > just hypothetical stuff. <<Results 1 - 10 of about 170 for "measured cross sections" "decay distributions" velocity.>> (c) Google The B.S. meter is getting into the red zone and you are doing a miserable job of selling a collider to the tax payers. Is it because you would rather sell them a time-machine? <<Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts. Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed >> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... > > > > > I hear the > > Alpine mountaineer that volunteer to ride > > the ion with a police radar had to cancel due > > to illness in his dairy. > > > > All of these calculational formulas are found in public archives, > > > which you should take care to bookmark, read, and learn how to use, > > > since it is plain that you don't know what you're doing when you look > > > at a wiki article and incorrectly quote it, let alone derive incorrect > > > conclusions from it. If you need help, let me point you to > http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-kinematics.pdf > > > Oh! The nukeular-option. Jackson. > > That is not from Jackson, though it borrows from it. It is a > compendium compiled by the PDG group. It is standard relativistic > kinematics. If you want another source that gives a second opinion > about relativistic kinematics, I'm happy to suggest a number of books. > The one by Don Perkins is a good start, as is the one by Ferbel and > Das. > > > I don't argue much with him. > > > Still the collision formula from a lab frame > > doesn't help parlour tricks like pole and barn > > > Replace the CW ion with a pole. Replace the CCW > > ion with a barn and they get the same gamma. > > > If they were not seen to fit at rest. > > They will not be seen to fit in the > > RHIC or LHC lab frame. Sue... > > > Sue... > > |