| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"John Schoenfeld" |
| Date: |
12 May 2004 08:36:38 AM |
| Object: |
Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
This is the relativistic mass-varying force.
PROOF:
let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
let B = beta = v/c
Consider relativistic mass as a function of v.
m(v) = y(v) m0
Since
y(v) = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= 1 / sqrt(u) { where u(v) = 1 - v^2/c^2 }
= u^-1/2
Then,
dy/dv = -1/2 u^-3/2 (du/dv)
= -1/2 u^-3/2 2v/c^2
= v/[c^2 sqrt(u^3)]
= v/c^2 y^3 { since 1/sqrt(u^3) = y^3 }
= y^3 B/c
Consider the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity,
m(v) = y(v) m0
dm/dv = d(y(v) m0)/dv
= m0 (dy/dv)
= m0 y^3 B/c
Since relativistic mass is velocity-dependent, the mass-varying force
law is derived as:
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a
Since the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity is,
dm/dv = m0 y^3 B/c
Then the relativistic mass-varying force (SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE)
is,
F = (m(v) + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
QED
.
|
|
| User: "Ed Keane III" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 May 2004 08:31:31 AM |
|
|
"And then Schoenfeld-Einstein asked me to entertain his
relatives while he thought of a new name for his force."
-The non-credible guy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 May 2004 03:43:31 PM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
This is the relativistic mass-varying force.
PROOF:
let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
let B = beta = v/c
Consider relativistic mass as a function of v.
m(v) = y(v) m0
Since
y(v) = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= 1 / sqrt(u) { where u(v) = 1 - v^2/c^2 }
= u^-1/2
Then,
dy/dv = -1/2 u^-3/2 (du/dv)
= -1/2 u^-3/2 2v/c^2
= v/[c^2 sqrt(u^3)]
= v/c^2 y^3 { since 1/sqrt(u^3) = y^3 }
= y^3 B/c
Consider the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity,
m(v) = y(v) m0
dm/dv = d(y(v) m0)/dv
= m0 (dy/dv)
= m0 y^3 B/c
Since relativistic mass is velocity-dependent, the mass-varying
force
law is derived as:
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a
Since the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity is,
dm/dv = m0 y^3 B/c
Then the relativistic mass-varying force (SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE)
is,
F = (m(v) + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
All of that is pure horse dung.
All particle accelerators were designed by utilising only one
equation, namely
dp/dt = e(E + v x B)
No particle accelerator has ever been built which has not worked
acording to specifications anywhere in the world. Accelerators have
been built in which the particles move a speeds of approximately
{1-10^-11) c.
The design of the ISR was based on this equation. It was possible to
keep two proton beams on track to within a couple of millimetres for a
distance of 6 light months in that machine. So, not to be too polite
about it, to hell with your nonsense.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 01:09:57 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c7u29i$rfu$7@hercules.btinternet.com>...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
This is the relativistic mass-varying force.
PROOF:
let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
let B = beta = v/c
Consider relativistic mass as a function of v.
m(v) = y(v) m0
Since
y(v) = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= 1 / sqrt(u) { where u(v) = 1 - v^2/c^2 }
= u^-1/2
Then,
dy/dv = -1/2 u^-3/2 (du/dv)
= -1/2 u^-3/2 2v/c^2
= v/[c^2 sqrt(u^3)]
= v/c^2 y^3 { since 1/sqrt(u^3) = y^3 }
= y^3 B/c
Consider the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity,
m(v) = y(v) m0
dm/dv = d(y(v) m0)/dv
= m0 (dy/dv)
= m0 y^3 B/c
Since relativistic mass is velocity-dependent, the mass-varying
force
law is derived as:
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a
Since the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity is,
dm/dv = m0 y^3 B/c
Then the relativistic mass-varying force (SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE)
is,
F = (m(v) + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
All of that is pure horse dung.
Had you competence you would realize that the SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN
FORCE reduces to F = (ypa)/(Bc) or F = y^2m0a and is consist with SR
by design (dm=dv = (dym)/dv).
All particle accelerators were designed by utilising only one
equation, namely
dp/dt = e(E + v x B)
Is F = y^2m0a inconsistent with this?
No particle accelerator has ever been built which has not worked
acording to specifications anywhere in the world.
Is this your proof that my equation is wrong?
Accelerators have
been built in which the particles move a speeds of approximately
{1-10^-11) c.
The design of the ISR was based on this equation. It was possible to
keep two proton beams on track to within a couple of millimetres for a
distance of 6 light months in that machine. So, not to be too polite
about it, to hell with your nonsense.
Is this your proof then?
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 04:12:43 AM |
|
|
John Schoenfeld wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<c7u29i$rfu$7@hercules.btinternet.com>...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
This is the relativistic mass-varying force.
PROOF:
let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
let B = beta = v/c
Consider relativistic mass as a function of v.
m(v) = y(v) m0
Since
y(v) = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= 1 / sqrt(u) { where u(v) = 1 - v^2/c^2 }
= u^-1/2
Then,
dy/dv = -1/2 u^-3/2 (du/dv)
= -1/2 u^-3/2 2v/c^2
= v/[c^2 sqrt(u^3)]
= v/c^2 y^3 { since 1/sqrt(u^3) = y^3 }
= y^3 B/c
Consider the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity,
m(v) = y(v) m0
dm/dv = d(y(v) m0)/dv
= m0 (dy/dv)
= m0 y^3 B/c
Since relativistic mass is velocity-dependent, the mass-varying
force
law is derived as:
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a
Since the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity is,
dm/dv = m0 y^3 B/c
Then the relativistic mass-varying force (SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE)
is,
F = (m(v) + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
All of that is pure horse dung.
Had you competence you would realize that the SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN
FORCE reduces to F = (ypa)/(Bc) or F = y^2m0a and is consist with SR
by design (dm=dv = (dym)/dv).
Err, SR gives another relation between force and acceleration than yours
here, if you didn't notice - so obviously your result is *not*
consistent with SR.
All particle accelerators were designed by utilising only one
equation, namely
dp/dt = e(E + v x B)
Is F = y^2m0a inconsistent with this?
F = y^2 m0 a is inconsistent with
F_x = m_o gamma3 a_x, F_y = m_o gamma a_y, F_z = m_o gamma a_z
(for a velocity vector in x-direction)
No particle accelerator has ever been built which has not worked
acording to specifications anywhere in the world.
Is this your proof that my equation is wrong?
Essentially, yes.
Accelerators have
been built in which the particles move a speeds of approximately
{1-10^-11) c.
The design of the ISR was based on this equation. It was possible to
keep two proton beams on track to within a couple of millimetres for a
distance of 6 light months in that machine. So, not to be too polite
about it, to hell with your nonsense.
Is this your proof then?
Essentially, yes.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 06:20:29 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:c7ve6b$qq9$6@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
John Schoenfeld wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c7u29i$rfu$7@hercules.btinternet.com>...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
This is the relativistic mass-varying force.
PROOF:
let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
let B = beta = v/c
Consider relativistic mass as a function of v.
m(v) = y(v) m0
Since
y(v) = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= 1 / sqrt(u) { where u(v) = 1 - v^2/c^2 }
= u^-1/2
Then,
dy/dv = -1/2 u^-3/2 (du/dv)
= -1/2 u^-3/2 2v/c^2
= v/[c^2 sqrt(u^3)]
= v/c^2 y^3 { since 1/sqrt(u^3) = y^3 }
= y^3 B/c
Consider the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity,
m(v) = y(v) m0
dm/dv = d(y(v) m0)/dv
= m0 (dy/dv)
= m0 y^3 B/c
Since relativistic mass is velocity-dependent, the mass-varying
force
law is derived as:
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a
Since the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity is,
dm/dv = m0 y^3 B/c
Then the relativistic mass-varying force (SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE)
is,
F = (m(v) + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
All of that is pure horse dung.
Had you competence you would realize that the SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN
FORCE reduces to F = (ypa)/(Bc) or F = y^2m0a and is consist with SR
by design (dm=dv = (dym)/dv).
Err, SR gives another relation between force and acceleration than yours
here, if you didn't notice - so obviously your result is *not*
consistent with SR.
I wonder, among other things, when he will wake up that since v is a vector
dv/dv is not even defined so that the chain rule is inapplicable.
Thanks
Bill
All particle accelerators were designed by utilising only one
equation, namely
dp/dt = e(E + v x B)
Is F = y^2m0a inconsistent with this?
F = y^2 m0 a is inconsistent with
F_x = m_o gamma3 a_x, F_y = m_o gamma a_y, F_z = m_o gamma a_z
(for a velocity vector in x-direction)
No particle accelerator has ever been built which has not worked
acording to specifications anywhere in the world.
Is this your proof that my equation is wrong?
Essentially, yes.
Accelerators have
been built in which the particles move a speeds of approximately
{1-10^-11) c.
The design of the ISR was based on this equation. It was possible to
keep two proton beams on track to within a couple of millimetres for a
distance of 6 light months in that machine. So, not to be too polite
about it, to hell with your nonsense.
Is this your proof then?
Essentially, yes.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
05 Jun 2004 02:23:37 PM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1SIoc.36186$TT.14355@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:c7ve6b$qq9$6@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
John Schoenfeld wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<c7u29i$rfu$7@hercules.btinternet.com>...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
This is the relativistic mass-varying force.
PROOF:
let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
let B = beta = v/c
Consider relativistic mass as a function of v.
m(v) = y(v) m0
Since
y(v) = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= 1 / sqrt(u) { where u(v) = 1 - v^2/c^2 }
= u^-1/2
Then,
dy/dv = -1/2 u^-3/2 (du/dv)
= -1/2 u^-3/2 2v/c^2
= v/[c^2 sqrt(u^3)]
= v/c^2 y^3 { since 1/sqrt(u^3) = y^3 }
= y^3 B/c
Consider the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity,
m(v) = y(v) m0
dm/dv = d(y(v) m0)/dv
= m0 (dy/dv)
= m0 y^3 B/c
Since relativistic mass is velocity-dependent, the mass-varying
force
law is derived as:
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a
Since the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity is,
dm/dv = m0 y^3 B/c
Then the relativistic mass-varying force (SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE)
is,
F = (m(v) + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
All of that is pure horse dung.
Had you competence you would realize that the SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN
FORCE reduces to F = (ypa)/(Bc) or F = y^2m0a and is consist with SR
by design (dm=dv = (dym)/dv).
Err, SR gives another relation between force and acceleration than yours
here, if you didn't notice - so obviously your result is *not*
consistent with SR.
I wonder, among other things, when he will wake up that since v is a vector
dv/dv is not even defined so that the chain rule is inapplicable.
Velocity is a tensor, not a vector. dm/dv is perfectly valid when
considering mass as rank-0 velocity dependent - that is - it varies
with speed irrespective of direction. Coincidently, this is the case
for special relativity.
Thanks
Bill
All particle accelerators were designed by utilising only one
equation, namely
dp/dt = e(E + v x B)
Is F = y^2m0a inconsistent with this?
F = y^2 m0 a is inconsistent with
F_x = m_o gamma3 a_x, F_y = m_o gamma a_y, F_z = m_o gamma a_z
(for a velocity vector in x-direction)
No particle accelerator has ever been built which has not worked
acording to specifications anywhere in the world.
Is this your proof that my equation is wrong?
Essentially, yes.
Accelerators have
been built in which the particles move a speeds of approximately
{1-10^-11) c.
The design of the ISR was based on this equation. It was possible to
keep two proton beams on track to within a couple of millimetres for a
distance of 6 light months in that machine. So, not to be too polite
about it, to hell with your nonsense.
Is this your proof then?
Essentially, yes.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 May 2004 08:52:14 AM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
This is the relativistic mass-varying force.
PROOF:
let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
let B = beta = v/c
Consider relativistic mass as a function of v.
m(v) = y(v) m0
Since
y(v) = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= 1 / sqrt(u) { where u(v) = 1 - v^2/c^2 }
= u^-1/2
Then,
dy/dv = -1/2 u^-3/2 (du/dv)
= -1/2 u^-3/2 2v/c^2
= v/[c^2 sqrt(u^3)]
= v/c^2 y^3 { since 1/sqrt(u^3) = y^3 }
= y^3 B/c
Consider the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity,
m(v) = y(v) m0
dm/dv = d(y(v) m0)/dv
= m0 (dy/dv)
= m0 y^3 B/c
Since relativistic mass is velocity-dependent, the mass-varying force
law is derived as:
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a
Since the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity is,
dm/dv = m0 y^3 B/c
Then the relativistic mass-varying force (SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE)
is,
F = (m(v) + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
QED
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 May 2004 09:06:44 AM |
|
|
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i_poc.34835$TT.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
....
QED
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 May 2004 05:04:04 PM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03...
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i_poc.34835$TT.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
...
QED
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You know I used to believe it was a bit moor complex than that. I now
suspect it is not.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 12:52:27 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<obxoc.34993$TT.4205@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03...
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i_poc.34835$TT.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
...
QED
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You know I used to believe it was a bit moor complex than that. I now
suspect it is not.
It would appear from your babble that there is some sort of error in
the mathematics which I generously posted, but in usual Bill Bubba
style, Bubby fails to come through with the math.
Thanks
Your welcome.
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 02:53:28 AM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405122152.2a052081@posting.google.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<obxoc.34993$TT.4205@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03...
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i_poc.34835$TT.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
...
QED
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You know I used to believe it was a bit moor complex than that. I now
suspect it is not.
It would appear from your babble that there is some sort of error in
the mathematics which I generously posted, but in usual Bill Bubba
style, Bubby fails to come through with the math.
One guy says I am a mere mathematician, another says I can't even do that.
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a
Learn the product rule
http://archives.math.utk.edu/visual.calculus/2/product_rule.5/
The answer is F = m(v) a + v dm(v)/dt.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 03:52:30 AM |
|
|
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YPFoc.35824$TT.17911@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405122152.2a052081@posting.google.com...
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<obxoc.34993$TT.4205@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03...
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i_poc.34835$TT.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
...
QED
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about
face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You know I used to believe it was a bit moor complex than that. I now
suspect it is not.
It would appear from your babble that there is some sort of error in
the mathematics which I generously posted, but in usual Bill Bubba
style, Bubby fails to come through with the math.
One guy says I am a mere mathematician, another says I can't even do that.
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a
Learn the product rule
http://archives.math.utk.edu/visual.calculus/2/product_rule.5/
The answer is F = m(v) a + v dm(v)/dt.
Whoops I forgot to add that since v is a vector you can not apply the chain
rule to m(v) because then its derivative would be a vector - you must apply
it to m/sqrt(1-(v/c)2) and we take v2 as v.v.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 02:55:41 AM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03>...
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i_poc.34835$TT.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
...
QED
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You don't actually believe in all that hocus pocus, do you? Half those
disorders are mere inventions to keep the unemployabe (like you)
employed. Go get a job!
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 09:18:40 AM |
|
|
Dear John Schoenfeld:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405122355.79e4cc0c@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03>...
....
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You don't actually believe in all that hocus pocus, do you? Half those
disorders are mere inventions to keep the unemployabe (like you)
employed. Go get a job!
I'm not the one wasting time rederiving 300+ year old equations, and doing
it poorly.
The disorders describe a repeatable set of behaviours. Such actions are as
necessary as describing the behaviours of the various groups of subatomic
particles.
And I am employable, and currently have a job as an engineer.
I suggest that if you are here to learn, because you cannot afford formal
classes, perhaps you should run your "mouth" less making statements, and
more about asking questions. Of course, that assumes you *can* help
yourself...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 05:24:46 PM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:5tLoc.126217$Jy3.67413@fed1read03...
Dear John Schoenfeld:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405122355.79e4cc0c@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03>...
...
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You don't actually believe in all that hocus pocus, do you? Half those
disorders are mere inventions to keep the unemployabe (like you)
employed. Go get a job!
I'm not the one wasting time rederiving 300+ year old equations, and doing
it poorly.
The disorders describe a repeatable set of behaviours. Such actions are
as
necessary as describing the behaviours of the various groups of subatomic
particles.
And I am employable, and currently have a job as an engineer.
I suggest that if you are here to learn, because you cannot afford formal
classes, perhaps you should run your "mouth" less making statements, and
more about asking questions. Of course, that assumes you *can* help
yourself...
Correct David. There are quite a few issues he has ignored eg is the force
heatlike or pure. He also applied the chain rule to a vector function which
you can not do unless he is treating the case where the acceleration is in
the same direction as the force and you orientate your axis that way - then
velocity becomes a scalar. Only trouble is in SR force is not always in the
same direction as the acceleration so he really must treat them all as
vectors. In fact what he has done is try to derive a formula of very
limited applicability - that of a pure force in the direction of
acceleration. It should be called Schofields law of very limited
applicability. And even in that case the formula reduces to F =
1/((1-(v/c)2)^3/2) m A which may be what he is heading towards. But unlike
Mr Schoenfeld I not only try to do the math but I check it with a reputable
source to ensure I have not made a mistake of forgotten something - this
formula can be found on page 93 Rindler Introduction to Special Relativity.
Now if he had posted asking what people thought of his derivation and not
putting in such grandiose language as SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE
and basically challenging us to prove him wrong then he may have actually
learnt something which would be a win win for everyone.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 07:00:34 PM |
|
|
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OASoc.37126$TT.21333@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:5tLoc.126217$Jy3.67413@fed1read03...
....
I suggest that if you are here to learn, because you cannot afford
formal
classes, perhaps you should run your "mouth" less making statements,
and
more about asking questions. Of course, that assumes you *can* help
yourself...
Correct David. There are quite a few issues he has ignored eg is the
force
heatlike or pure. He also applied the chain rule to a vector function
which
you can not do unless he is treating the case where the acceleration is
in
the same direction as the force and you orientate your axis that way -
then
velocity becomes a scalar. Only trouble is in SR force is not always in
the
same direction as the acceleration so he really must treat them all as
vectors. In fact what he has done is try to derive a formula of very
limited applicability - that of a pure force in the direction of
acceleration. It should be called Schofields law of very limited
applicability. And even in that case the formula reduces to F =
1/((1-(v/c)2)^3/2) m A which may be what he is heading towards. But
unlike
Mr Schoenfeld I not only try to do the math but I check it with a
reputable
source to ensure I have not made a mistake of forgotten something - this
formula can be found on page 93 Rindler Introduction to Special
Relativity.
Now if he had posted asking what people thought of his derivation and not
putting in such grandiose language as SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC
FORCE
and basically challenging us to prove him wrong then he may have actually
learnt something which would be a win win for everyone.
He's got the drive, and the capacity. Maybe he can yet learn...
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 11:39:10 PM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear John Schoenfeld:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405122355.79e4cc0c@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03>...
...
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You don't actually believe in all that hocus pocus, do you? Half those
disorders are mere inventions to keep the unemployabe (like you)
employed. Go get a job!
I'm not the one wasting time rederiving 300+ year old equations, and doing
it poorly.
Why don't you do your credibility a favour and state:
1. A 300+ year old equation which I have derived.
2. An error in my derivation.
The disorders describe a repeatable set of behaviours. Such actions are as
necessary as describing the behaviours of the various groups of subatomic
particles.
Judging from your babblings, we can take it you have a disorder of
your own. I'm betting on "Triplo-X aneuploidy".
And I am employable, and currently have a job as an engineer.
There are no jobs for "Engineers". What type of engineer?
I suggest that if you are here to learn,
There's not much to learn from here, I think that goes without saying
(bar the astounding truths I post).
because you cannot afford formal
classes,
So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled class-based
attacks. What's the point in paying $200k for an education I can get
for free at the local library/internet, David?
perhaps you should run your "mouth" less making statements,
You should be thanking me for allowing you the privilege of witnessing
the astounding truths I post, instead you are an insolent crackpot.
and
more about asking questions. Of course, that assumes you *can* help
yourself...
Thanks for the tip, now where is the error?
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike King" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
16 May 2004 09:28:20 PM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405132039.794c508f@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
Dear John Schoenfeld:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405122355.79e4cc0c@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote
in
message news:<Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03>...
...
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about
face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You don't actually believe in all that hocus pocus, do you? Half those
disorders are mere inventions to keep the unemployabe (like you)
employed. Go get a job!
I'm not the one wasting time rederiving 300+ year old equations, and
doing
it poorly.
Why don't you do your credibility a favour and state:
1. A 300+ year old equation which I have derived.
2. An error in my derivation.
The disorders describe a repeatable set of behaviours. Such actions are
as
necessary as describing the behaviours of the various groups of
subatomic
particles.
Judging from your babblings, we can take it you have a disorder of
your own. I'm betting on "Triplo-X aneuploidy".
And I am employable, and currently have a job as an engineer.
There are no jobs for "Engineers". What type of engineer?
I suggest that if you are here to learn,
There's not much to learn from here, I think that goes without saying
(bar the astounding truths I post).
because you cannot afford formal
classes,
So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled class-based
attacks. What's the point in paying $200k for an education I can get
for free at the local library/internet, David?
perhaps you should run your "mouth" less making statements,
You should be thanking me for allowing you the privilege of witnessing
the astounding truths I post, instead you are an insolent crackpot.
and
more about asking questions. Of course, that assumes you *can* help
yourself...
Thanks for the tip, now where is the error?
David A. Smith
So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled
class-based attacks. What's the point in paying $200k
for an education I can get for free at the local
library/internet, David?
In regards to your quotation from "Good Will Hunting" there are very few of
us with the ability to simply read and absorb written factual information.
Many people require a variety of sources for proper absorption and
retention. You have clearly shown, countless times in this thread alone,
that you completely ignore the statements of others. If you can't read or
choose to ignore what others have written, how can you expect us to disprove
or verify your equation?
Michael King
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
16 May 2004 09:32:56 PM |
|
|
Dear Mike King:
"Mike King" <hyperionone@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:8rVpc.503477$Ig.105044@pd7tw2no...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405132039.794c508f@posting.google.com...
....
Thanks for the tip, now where is the error?
So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled
class-based attacks. What's the point in paying $200k
for an education I can get for free at the local
library/internet, David?
In regards to your quotation from "Good Will Hunting" there are very few
of
us with the ability to simply read and absorb written factual
information.
Many people require a variety of sources for proper absorption and
retention. You have clearly shown, countless times in this thread alone,
that you completely ignore the statements of others. If you can't read or
choose to ignore what others have written, how can you expect us to
disprove
or verify your equation?
And the blowhard nymshifts into yet another name... Since "John
Schoenfeld" couldn't actually reply without lying, a new sock puppet is
created. How sad.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
11 Jun 2004 07:23:05 PM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<xvVpc.56684$iy5.25580@okepread05>...
Dear Mike King:
"Mike King" <hyperionone@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:8rVpc.503477$Ig.105044@pd7tw2no...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405132039.794c508f@posting.google.com...
...
Thanks for the tip, now where is the error?
So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled
class-based attacks. What's the point in paying $200k
for an education I can get for free at the local
library/internet, David?
In regards to your quotation from "Good Will Hunting" there are very few
of
us with the ability to simply read and absorb written factual
information.
Many people require a variety of sources for proper absorption and
retention. You have clearly shown, countless times in this thread alone,
that you completely ignore the statements of others. If you can't read or
choose to ignore what others have written, how can you expect us to
disprove
or verify your equation?
And the blowhard nymshifts into yet another name... Since "John
Schoenfeld" couldn't actually reply without lying, a new sock puppet is
created. How sad.
And where did I lie?
<plonk>
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 Jun 2004 10:59:08 PM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0406111623.6d873183@posting.google.com...
....
<plonk>
Another reason to update my killfile.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 11:51:18 PM |
|
|
Dear John Schoenfeld:
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405132039.794c508f@posting.google.com...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
....
I'm not the one wasting time rederiving 300+ year old equations, and
doing
it poorly.
Why don't you do your credibility a favour and state:
1. A 300+ year old equation which I have derived.
How many times have you posted Newton formulae? How many more times do you
have to?
2. An error in my derivation.
Done many times.
The disorders describe a repeatable set of behaviours. Such actions are
as
necessary as describing the behaviours of the various groups of
subatomic
particles.
Judging from your babblings, we can take it you have a disorder of
your own. I'm betting on "Triplo-X aneuploidy".
Whatever you think is right.
And I am employable, and currently have a job as an engineer.
There are no jobs for "Engineers". What type of engineer?
Mechanical.
I suggest that if you are here to learn,
There's not much to learn from here, I think that goes without saying
(bar the astounding truths I post).
Bullsh*t. You post 300 year old bullsh*t.
because you cannot afford formal
classes,
So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled class-based
attacks. What's the point in paying $200k for an education I can get
for free at the local library/internet, David?
You aren't learning, however. You are posting, and attacking. But not
learning. And an education *here* serves you not at all. Were you even
willing to listen.
perhaps you should run your "mouth" less making statements,
You should be thanking me for allowing you the privilege of witnessing
the astounding truths I post, instead you are an insolent crackpot.
The "astounding truth" you post, and very clearly, is that you cannot
learn. You are doing no one you work for any good, with your attitude.
and
more about asking questions. Of course, that assumes you *can* help
yourself...
Thanks for the tip, now where is the error?
It is a matter of public record. You embarass your self in public. You
can close your raincoat now.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 04:04:25 AM |
|
|
John Schoenfeld wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03>...
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i_poc.34835$TT.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
...
QED
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You don't actually believe in all that hocus pocus, do you? Half those
disorders are mere inventions to keep the unemployabe (like you)
employed. Go get a job!
So, you not only think that you know physics better than the physicists,
but also psychology better than the psychologists?
You are really full of yourself.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 06:14:26 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:c7vdmp$qq9$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
John Schoenfeld wrote:
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:<Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03>...
Dear Bill Hobba:
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i_poc.34835$TT.421@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
...
QED
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about face?
Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.
You don't actually believe in all that hocus pocus, do you? Half those
disorders are mere inventions to keep the unemployabe (like you)
employed. Go get a job!
So, you not only think that you know physics better than the physicists,
but also psychology better than the psychologists?
You are really full of yourself.
Almost by definition crackpots must be, after all how else can they maintain
the positions they do.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Varney" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 May 2004 11:04:57 AM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0405120536.4e9e771f@posting.google.com...
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
You are an ignorant, arrogant jackass Schoenfeld. Go play with Cesar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 May 2004 09:46:53 AM |
|
|
John Schoenfeld wrote:
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
Oh man, you broke my ***** meter!
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=Schoenfeld+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 May 2004 08:00:21 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40A238D0.D7FDAF0D@mchsi.com>...
John Schoenfeld wrote:
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
Oh man, you broke my ***** meter!
It simplifies to
F = (paY)/(bc)
which can be rewritten as
F = y^2m0a which is similar to the well known result of F = y^3m0a,
but that would requre you to know some physics which you clearly
don't.
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
You should read this page, very informative.
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
So you are claiming that my proposed formula is empircally falsified
by SR? It's a pitty you can't show why.
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=Schoenfeld+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
You are giving the impression to unwary posters that my derivation is
wrong, care to point out the error? Didn't think so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
12 May 2004 09:12:15 PM |
|
|
John Schoenfeld wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40A238D0.D7FDAF0D@mchsi.com>...
John Schoenfeld wrote:
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
Oh man, you broke my ***** meter!
It simplifies to
F = (paY)/(bc)
which can be rewritten as
F = y^2m0a which is similar to the well known result of F = y^3m0a,
but that would requre you to know some physics which you clearly
don't.
Relativistic Force is indeed F_x = m_o gamma^3 a_x
F_y = m_o gamma a_y
F_z = m_o gamma a_z
So what the hell is your F = y^2m0a ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 03:10:54 AM |
|
|
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=Schoenfeld+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
You are giving the impression to unwary posters that my derivation is
wrong, care to point out the error? Didn't think so.
I see you didn't answer my question. If it is "*****" as you
claimed it is, then at least do your credibility a favour and show
why.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Schoenfeld-Einstein Relativistic Force |
13 May 2004 02:59:41 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40A2D970.71152E9B@mchsi.com>...
John Schoenfeld wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<40A238D0.D7FDAF0D@mchsi.com>...
John Schoenfeld wrote:
SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:
F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a
Oh man, you broke my ***** meter!
It simplifies to
F = (paY)/(bc)
which can be rewritten as
F = y^2m0a which is similar to the well known result of F = y^3m0a,
but that would requre you to know some physics which you clearly
don't.
Relativistic Force is indeed F_x = m_o gamma^3 a_x
F_y = m_o gamma a_y
F_z = m_o gamma a_z
So what the hell is your F = y^2m0a ?
The "SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
