OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: bz on 11 Jun 2005 19:50 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:2mema19pfabchc9b0e6q6lobvajc8iis07(a)4ax.com: > On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:04:44 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:983ga157jop9hl561fpd4se2s67aadcaii(a)4ax.com: >>We have some pretty good ideas what DOES happen. We got those ideas from >>watching what happens in places INCLUDING accelerators. > > but we still don't have any decent way to measure the OW speed of gamma > particles. We don't need exact one way speed. We just need to show that the photons are not moving faster than light. >>>>> Incidentally, a decaying particle cannot be assumed to constitute a >>>>> normal source. >>>> >>>>It can under SR/GR. If it can't under BaT, that is a strike against >>>>BaT. >>> >>> But it doesn't necessarily 'decay'. It merely changes from one form to >>> another. >> >>'Decay' is usually used to refer to the transition of an excited >>atom/molecule to a lower level of excitement. This often involves the >>emission of a photon. > > That's not a 'decay'. You are unfamiliar with a rather common use of the word 'decay'. There are nuclear decays and there are decays of excited atomic orbitals and there are decays of excited molecular orbitals. Here is the title of a paper: "Decay of spin-polarized atomic hydrogen in the presence of a Bose condensate" > Decay normally unvolves a nuclear transition. Often the particle > disappears altogether and becomes EM. Here is a quote from a different paper: "Laser excitation to near-threshold continuum states is found to result in non-exponential decay of the ground state population." http://www.optics.rochester.edu/users/stroud/thesis/cardimona.html -- 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: Henri Wilson on 11 Jun 2005 15:31 On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:04:44 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:983ga157jop9hl561fpd4se2s67aadcaii(a)4ax.com: > > >> >> AS I have said many times, if I hit a golf ball at v and it breaks >> into two in flight, the two pieces continue on at v, initially. >> Anything might happen when a particle breaks into EM. > >We have some pretty good ideas what DOES happen. We got those ideas from >watching what happens in places INCLUDING accelerators. but we still don't have any decent way to measure the OW speed of gamma particles. > >>>> Incidentally, a decaying particle cannot be assumed to constitute a >>>> normal source. >>> >>>It can under SR/GR. If it can't under BaT, that is a strike against BaT. >> >> But it doesn't necessarily 'decay'. It merely changes from one form to >> another. > >'Decay' is usually used to refer to the transition of an excited >atom/molecule to a lower level of excitement. This often involves the >emission of a photon. That's not a 'decay'. Decay normally unvolves a nuclear transition. Often the particle disappears altogether and becomes EM. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Jun 2005 15:34 On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:07:54 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >news:733ga1tlt4ill427arlcotoaop6q3gje56(a)4ax.com: > >>>> After that, the >>>> photon slows down, speeds up, changes direction, etc. like >>>> any other Galilean particle moving at speed c, when encounting >>>> gravitational fields and moving observers. >>> >>>How would you compare this to SR/GR photons? >> >> SG/GR says absolutely nothing about photons when they aren't being >> observed. > >I suspect it says Newton's first law applies when they aren't being >observed. I suspect is says Newton's second law applies when they aren't >being observed. It certainly does not. It says nothing. > >And what does BaT say about photons when they aren't being observed? it says Newton's first law applies when they aren't being observed. I suspect is says Newton's second law applies when they aren't being observed. >>>Henri keeps saying that photons emitted by particles moving near c in a >>>particle accelerator won't show c'=c+v because of [insert hand waving >>>here]. >>> >>>I want a real explaination, not hand waving. >> >> I don't want to discuss particles in accelerators or their decay >> products. > >I understand why. Two reasons. 1) the aparatus constitutes an EM FoR and 2) the methods used to measure the OW speeds of Xray and gamma particles is suspect. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm 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 12 Jun 2005 00:00 In sci.physics, bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:55:19 +0000 (UTC) <Xns9672CAAF0A925WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139>: > H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in > news:g1fma19utpj2nnti462pm0h6ra4qb6951m(a)4ax.com: > [snippage for brevity] >> and 2) the methods >> used to measure the OW speeds of Xray and gamma particles is suspect. > > Accurate OW speed is not required. Just enough to show > that no photons faster than c. It doesn't take much >accuracy to show that photons are not traveling at 1.9 c. Correction: 1.2 c, as I understand the pi meson experiment. However, I'm now having trouble finding a web page describing that particular experiment. (Feh!!) One webpage that mentions mesons in a different context (as it's explaining the time dialation issue) is http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Logan/Poetry/CHAPTER11-12.html which can also be taken as good evidence for SR. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: David Evens on 12 Jun 2005 02:23
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:28:16 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: >On 6 Jun 2005 20:56:06 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> On 6 Jun 2005 04:29:33 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >You ARE a complete failure. >>> >>> Silly boy! >> >>Why do you automatically assume that I'm male? Like my real >>name, "Jerry" is gender-ambiguous. It is a common diminutive >>for Geraldine. Ever heard of supermodel Jerry Hall? >> >>Pig. > >We don't have any girls here. They can't understand physics. To quote an old movie with some actors in it who show themselves to be far better than some of their more recent material, "That's universally stupid!" |