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: BURT on 2 Jun 2010 15:09 On Jun 2, 12:00 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > BURT a écrit : > > > > > > > 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? > > 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. No. Provide what will be different. I will hold you to it for the sake of the argument. What are you arguing that will be different? If you can't answer please admit it now. Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > >> 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/csan..... 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I thought so. You cannot back yourself up. Atoms do not go flat. Mitch Raemsch |