Ohm's Law and Maxwell on Relativity !
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
Next: Neutrino oscillation captured in the lab for the first time
From: YBM on 2 Jun 2010 14:18 BURT a �crit : > On Jun 1, 5:01 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> BURT a �crit : >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 1, 4:43 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >>>> BURT a �crit : >>>>> On Jun 1, 3:28 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: >>>>>> you may have a point here >>>>>> listen, when length contraction, >>>>>> space contracts, so the atoms in >>>>>> it will preserve their shape, if >>>>>> any >>>>>> so no stress whatsoever !!! >>>>>> good bye >>>>> No. Atoms would loose their form. The distance size of the atom in the >>>>> direction of the moving train would contract. >>>> It does, this has been proven *experimentaly*. >>> No. It has never been observed. And there is a good reason. >> Come on, crank. Have a look to the litterature in experimental physics >> about ions collisioner. >> >> The bloody collisioner wouldn't even work at all if relativistic >> contraction of nucleus hadn't been taken in account.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > You wish. Such a thing is nonsense. You can't claim there is any > evidence for it at all. Atom acceleraters don't contract atoms. Your > idea that the nucleus needs to contract for acceleration to work is > stupid. > > You have nothing to back you up. You can deny facts as much as you like, it doesn't make them disappear.
From: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 14:26 On Jun 2, 11:18 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > BURT a écrit : > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 5:01 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > >> BURT a écrit : > > >>> On Jun 1, 4:43 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > >>>> BURT a écrit : > >>>>> On Jun 1, 3:28 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> you may have a point here > >>>>>> listen, when length contraction, > >>>>>> space contracts, so the atoms in > >>>>>> it will preserve their shape, if > >>>>>> any > >>>>>> so no stress whatsoever !!! > >>>>>> good bye > >>>>> No. Atoms would loose their form. The distance size of the atom in the > >>>>> direction of the moving train would contract. > >>>> It does, this has been proven *experimentaly*. > >>> No. It has never been observed. And there is a good reason. > >> Come on, crank. Have a look to the litterature in experimental physics > >> about ions collisioner. > > >> The bloody collisioner wouldn't even work at all if relativistic > >> contraction of nucleus hadn't been taken in account.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > You wish. Such a thing is nonsense. You can't claim there is any > > evidence for it at all. Atom acceleraters don't contract atoms. Your > > idea that the nucleus needs to contract for acceleration to work is > > stupid. > > > You have nothing to back you up. > > You can deny facts as much as you like, it doesn't make them disappear.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Where is the proof that it is a fact? What is the excuse for not providing the measurements? You state the nucleus. But we cannot measure the nucleus. No. Atoms do not shrink in the direction of their motion. Lopsided atoms won't work out in physics. If they won't work out in physics there can be no more reason to argue for space contraction. Mitch Raemsch
From: YBM on 2 Jun 2010 14:46 BURT a �crit : > On Jun 2, 11:18 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> BURT a �crit : >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 1, 5:01 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >>>> BURT a �crit : >>>>> On Jun 1, 4:43 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> BURT a �crit : >>>>>>> On Jun 1, 3:28 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> you may have a point here >>>>>>>> listen, when length contraction, >>>>>>>> space contracts, so the atoms in >>>>>>>> it will preserve their shape, if >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> so no stress whatsoever !!! >>>>>>>> good bye >>>>>>> No. Atoms would loose their form. The distance size of the atom in the >>>>>>> direction of the moving train would contract. >>>>>> It does, this has been proven *experimentaly*. >>>>> No. It has never been observed. And there is a good reason. >>>> Come on, crank. Have a look to the litterature in experimental physics >>>> about ions collisioner. >>>> The bloody collisioner wouldn't even work at all if relativistic >>>> contraction of nucleus hadn't been taken in account.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> You wish. Such a thing is nonsense. You can't claim there is any >>> evidence for it at all. Atom acceleraters don't contract atoms. Your >>> idea that the nucleus needs to contract for acceleration to work is >>> stupid. >>> You have nothing to back you up. >> You can deny facts as much as you like, it doesn't make them disappear.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Where is the proof that it is a fact? What is the excuse for not > providing the measurements? You state the nucleus. But we cannot > measure the nucleus. The shape of the nucleus in the collider frame is taken in account because it determines the shape of the Coulomb field around them. If the nucleus hadn't been Lorentz contracted, the Coulomb field wouldn't too, and the results of experiments would be different to what is observed. Worse, the colliders as they are designed wouldn't work at all. > No. Atoms do not shrink in the direction of their motion. http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/physics.asp http://www.fulbright.hu/book3/csanadmate.pdf (p. 21) > Lopsided atoms won't work out in physics. Why? Because stupid you and your stupid god decided it won't? > If they won't work out in physics there can be no more reason to argue > for space contraction. You can deny facts as much as you like, it doesn't make them disappear.
From: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 14:54 On Jun 2, 11:46 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > BURT a écrit : > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 11:18 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > >> BURT a écrit : > > >>> On Jun 1, 5:01 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > >>>> BURT a écrit : > >>>>> On Jun 1, 4:43 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > >>>>>> BURT a écrit : > >>>>>>> On Jun 1, 3:28 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> you may have a point here > >>>>>>>> listen, when length contraction, > >>>>>>>> space contracts, so the atoms in > >>>>>>>> it will preserve their shape, if > >>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>> so no stress whatsoever !!! > >>>>>>>> good bye > >>>>>>> No. Atoms would loose their form. The distance size of the atom in the > >>>>>>> direction of the moving train would contract. > >>>>>> It does, this has been proven *experimentaly*. > >>>>> No. It has never been observed. And there is a good reason. > >>>> Come on, crank. Have a look to the litterature in experimental physics > >>>> about ions collisioner. > >>>> The bloody collisioner wouldn't even work at all if relativistic > >>>> contraction of nucleus hadn't been taken in account.- Hide quoted text - > >>>> - Show quoted text - > >>> You wish. Such a thing is nonsense. You can't claim there is any > >>> evidence for it at all. Atom acceleraters don't contract atoms. Your > >>> idea that the nucleus needs to contract for acceleration to work is > >>> stupid. > >>> You have nothing to back you up. > >> You can deny facts as much as you like, it doesn't make them disappear..- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Where is the proof that it is a fact? What is the excuse for not > > providing the measurements? You state the nucleus. But we cannot > > measure the nucleus. > > The shape of the nucleus in the collider frame is taken in account > because it determines the shape of the Coulomb field around them. Prove it. What is a coulomb field doing that needs it to contract? Please provide the measurements and the reason it is necessary as you say. I say you have none. Mitch Raemsch > > If the nucleus hadn't been Lorentz contracted, the Coulomb field > wouldn't too, and the results of experiments would be different > to what is observed. Different in what way? > Worse, the colliders as they are designed > wouldn't work at all. > > > No. Atoms do not shrink in the direction of their motion. > > http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/physics.asphttp://www.fulbright.hu/book3/csanadmate.pdf(p. 21) > > > Lopsided atoms won't work out in physics. > > Why? Because stupid you and your stupid god decided it won't? > > > If they won't work out in physics there can be no more reason to argue > > for space contraction. > > You can deny facts as much as you like, it doesn't make them disappear.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - NO. There are no flat atoms. This is proven already. This is the fact. Mitcvh Raemsch
From: YBM on 2 Jun 2010 15:00
BURT a �crit : > On Jun 2, 11:46 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> BURT a �crit : >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 2, 11:18 am, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >>>> BURT a �crit : >>>>> On Jun 1, 5:01 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> BURT a �crit : >>>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:43 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> BURT a �crit : >>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 3:28 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> you may have a point here >>>>>>>>>> listen, when length contraction, >>>>>>>>>> space contracts, so the atoms in >>>>>>>>>> it will preserve their shape, if >>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>> so no stress whatsoever !!! >>>>>>>>>> good bye >>>>>>>>> No. Atoms would loose their form. The distance size of the atom in the >>>>>>>>> direction of the moving train would contract. >>>>>>>> It does, this has been proven *experimentaly*. >>>>>>> No. It has never been observed. And there is a good reason. >>>>>> Come on, crank. Have a look to the litterature in experimental physics >>>>>> about ions collisioner. >>>>>> The bloody collisioner wouldn't even work at all if relativistic >>>>>> contraction of nucleus hadn't been taken in account.- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >>>>> You wish. Such a thing is nonsense. You can't claim there is any >>>>> evidence for it at all. Atom acceleraters don't contract atoms. Your >>>>> idea that the nucleus needs to contract for acceleration to work is >>>>> stupid. >>>>> You have nothing to back you up. >>>> You can deny facts as much as you like, it doesn't make them disappear.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Where is the proof that it is a fact? What is the excuse for not >>> providing the measurements? You state the nucleus. But we cannot >>> measure the nucleus. >> The shape of the nucleus in the collider frame is taken in account >> because it determines the shape of the Coulomb field around them. > > Prove it. What is a coulomb field doing that needs it to contract? This is not only a stupid question, this is a meaningless question. > Please provide the measurements and the reason it is necessary as you > say. Read the papers. > I say you have none. > > Mitch Raemsch > > >> If the nucleus hadn't been Lorentz contracted, the Coulomb field >> wouldn't too, and the results of experiments would be different >> to what is observed. > > Different in what way? Read the papers. >> Worse, the colliders as they are designed >> wouldn't work at all. >> >>> No. Atoms do not shrink in the direction of their motion. >> http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/physics.asphttp://www.fulbright.hu/book3/csanadmate.pdf(p. 21) >> >>> Lopsided atoms won't work out in physics. >> Why? Because stupid you and your stupid god decided it won't? >> >>> If they won't work out in physics there can be no more reason to argue >>> for space contraction. >> You can deny facts as much as you like, it doesn't make them disappear.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > NO. There are no flat atoms. This is proven already. This is the fact. Listen, idiot : I gave you references to scientific papers you certainly didn't even read. I don't gare about your disproven religious-driven assertions. |