| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" |
| Date: |
15 Apr 2005 05:43:02 AM |
| Object: |
Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
If the increase-of-mass theory is to be in agreement with
(particle-accelerator) experiment, it must show that masses increase to
infinity as they approach the speed of light. Which means that there
IS a physical speed limit (=c).
(We detect this mass-increase from the extra bash they give when they
crash into stationary particles.)
.
|
|
| User: "Aleksandar Vukelja" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
15 Apr 2005 11:06:02 AM |
|
|
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1113561782.353327.219640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
If the increase-of-mass theory is to be in agreement with
(particle-accelerator) experiment, it must show that masses increase to
infinity as they approach the speed of light. Which means that there
IS a physical speed limit (=c).
(We detect this mass-increase from the extra bash they give when they
crash into stationary particles.)
Uh! Oh! What am I going to do now! My theory
http://www.masstheory.org/oos_1_english.pdf predicts that mass increases to
infinity as fields are accelerated to speed c...
But... Wait! Isn't that what you said is proved by experiment?
Cheers,
Aleksandar
PS
It is postulate of relativity theory that speed of light is independent from
the speed of observer, that I am in disagreement with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
15 Apr 2005 01:00:47 PM |
|
|
"Aleksandar Vukelja" <spam@spam.net> wrote in message news:425fe66a$0$884$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1113561782.353327.219640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
If the increase-of-mass theory is to be in agreement with
(particle-accelerator) experiment, it must show that masses increase to
infinity as they approach the speed of light. Which means that there
IS a physical speed limit (=c).
(We detect this mass-increase from the extra bash they give when they
crash into stationary particles.)
Uh! Oh! What am I going to do now! My theory
http://www.masstheory.org/oos_1_english.pdf predicts that mass increases to
infinity as fields are accelerated to speed c...
You might be not interested to read
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/mass.html
since you wouldn't understand the equations to begin with.
But... Wait! Isn't that what you said is proved by experiment?
Cheers,
Aleksandar
PS
It is postulate of relativity theory that speed of light is independent from
the speed of observer, that I am in disagreement with.
No, you are in tragical disagreement with your own
profound misunderstandings of the meaning of just
about every equation that is used on just about every
first page of just about every text on physics and
mathematics. You just don't have the brain to realize
that.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
18 Apr 2005 04:26:44 AM |
|
|
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
in
message news:1113561782.353327.219640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
If the increase-of-mass theory is to be in agreement with
(particle-accelerator) experiment, it must show that masses
increase to
infinity as they approach the speed of light. Which means that
there
IS a physical speed limit (=c).
(We detect this mass-increase from the extra bash they give when
they
crash into stationary particles.)
Uh! Oh! What am I going to do now! My theory
http://www.masstheory.org/oos_1_english.pdf predicts that mass
increases to
infinity as fields are accelerated to speed c...
But on p.7 you say "There is no speed limit in [the] material world."
But... Wait! Isn't that what you said is proved by experiment?
Cheers,
Aleksandar
PS
It is postulate of relativity theory that speed of light is
independent from
the speed of observer, that I am in disagreement with.
The invariance of c is a good way of making it a limit, since no-one
can then catch up with it. It is a geometrical or kinematical thing,
from which dynamical consequences follow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandar Vukelja" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
18 Apr 2005 06:56:34 AM |
|
|
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1113816404.731448.295660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But on p.7 you say "There is no speed limit in [the] material world."
The invariance of the speed of light means that c+c = c. A ray of light
travels from point O to points A and B which are 1 light-second away from O.
A ..............O ..............B
Distance between A nd B is 600,000 m. The time in which both receive the
same information was 1 sec. What's the *relative* speed between the two
light rays, at which information traveled? Isn't it 600,000 m/sec as
observed from O?
Even if nothing can be accelerated towards point A to achieve speed greater
that c (that would destroy the fields), it has nothing to do with relative
speed of a totally different event which is taking place on the opposite
side.
Relativity binds *unrelated events* with use of the *postulate* of
invariance of the speed of light. Just think about it.
Aleksandar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
20 Apr 2005 06:31:02 AM |
|
|
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
in
message news:1113816404.731448.295660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
But on p.7 you say "There is no speed limit in [the] material
world."
I reinsert this from your last-but-one response:-
Uh! Oh! What am I going to do now! My theory
http://www.masstheory.org/oos_1_english.pdf predicts that mass
increases to
infinity as fields are accelerated to speed c...
Now what is this if it is not A SPEED LIMIT IN [THE] MATERIAL WORLD?
It's make-your-mind-up time, baby!
Special relativity does not disagree (though it apparently came as an
unpleasant surprise to Einstein in about 1910) that the relativisitc
speed limit does not apply between events which are not causally
connected. ...
The invariance of the speed of light means that c+c = c. A ray of
light
travels from point O to points A and B which are 1 light-second away
from O.
A ..............O ..............B
Distance between A nd B is 600,000 m. The time in which both receive
the
same information was 1 sec. What's the *relative* speed between the
two
light rays, at which information traveled? Isn't it 600,000 m/sec as
observed from O?
Even if nothing can be accelerated towards point A to achieve speed
greater
that c (that would destroy the fields),
What do you regard these "mass-making" fields, BTW? Electromagnetic
fields? Fields UNDERLYING e-m (and gravitational?) fields, whose
propagation speed is itself c? (You don't say explicitly in chapter 1,
pp.3, 4, that the propagation speed of the "mass-fields" is c.)
it has nothing to do with relative
speed of a totally different event which is taking place on the
opposite
side.
Relativity binds *unrelated events* with use of the *postulate* of
invariance of the speed of light. Just think about it.
I'm trying. I'm off to the chemist's for some aspirin.
Aleksandar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandar Vukelja" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
20 Apr 2005 03:05:50 PM |
|
|
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1113996662.237664.327130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
I reinsert this from your last-but-one response:-
Uh! Oh! What am I going to do now! My theory
http://www.masstheory.org/oos_1_english.pdf predicts that mass
increases to
infinity as fields are accelerated to speed c...
Now what is this if it is not A SPEED LIMIT IN [THE] MATERIAL WORLD?
It's make-your-mind-up time, baby!
That's more like the speed limit of individual vehicles, for example. You
can't judge that there is speed limit in material world if your car can't go
faster than 200 km/h, and you've never driven in anything faster than that.
It's a feature of that particular kind of car. But is that the fastest way
to get anywhere?
Special relativity does not disagree (though it apparently came as an
unpleasant surprise to Einstein in about 1910) that the relativisitc
speed limit does not apply between events which are not causally
connected. ...
Relativity is all about connecting unrelated events with the speed limit.
Lorentz transformation doesn't know anything about previous history of
interaction (acceleration) and it must be applied on all motion, regardless
of any causality. So that what you said is not true, and I don't know where
you heard about it.
What do you regard these "mass-making" fields, BTW? Electromagnetic
fields? Fields UNDERLYING e-m (and gravitational?) fields, whose
propagation speed is itself c? (You don't say explicitly in chapter 1,
pp.3, 4, that the propagation speed of the "mass-fields" is c.)
I'm sure I mentioned somewhere that I most directly think about electrons,
protons, and all other subatomic particles as generic fields. ...The speed c
cannot be constant, it can be easily proved that information cannot travel
with constant speed through distorted fields, but that's not important right
now.
Aleksandar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
23 Apr 2005 06:54:41 AM |
|
|
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
in
message news:1113996662.237664.327130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
I reinsert this from your last-but-one response:-
Uh! Oh! What am I going to do now! My theory
http://www.masstheory.org/oos_1_english.pdf predicts that
mass
increases to
infinity as fields are accelerated to speed c...
Now what is this if it is not A SPEED LIMIT IN [THE] MATERIAL
WORLD?
It's make-your-mind-up time, baby!
That's more like the speed limit of individual vehicles, for example.
You
can't judge that there is speed limit in material world if your car
can't go
faster than 200 km/h, and you've never driven in anything faster than
that.
It's a feature of that particular kind of car. But is that the
fastest way
to get anywhere?
So this would be the speed limit for individual masses (based on
individual fields), on an otherwise infinite speed-scale? (Each
individual mass stuck in its own range -c ... 0 ... +c ?
Special relativity does not disagree (though it apparently came as
an
unpleasant surprise to Einstein in about 1910) that the
relativisitc
speed limit does not apply between events which are not causally
connected. ...
Relativity is all about connecting unrelated events with the speed
limit.
Lorentz transformation doesn't know anything about previous history
of
interaction (acceleration) and it must be applied on all motion,
regardless
of any causality. So that what you said is not true, and I don't know
where
you heard about it.
I read it in a book (or three).
What do you regard these "mass-making" fields, BTW?
Electromagnetic
fields? Fields UNDERLYING e-m (and gravitational?) fields, whose
propagation speed is itself c? (You don't say explicitly in
chapter 1,
pp.3, 4, that the propagation speed of the "mass-fields" is c.)
I'm sure I mentioned somewhere that I most directly think about
electrons,
protons, and all other subatomic particles as generic fields. ...The
speed c
cannot be constant, it can be easily proved that information cannot
travel
with constant speed through distorted fields, but that's not
important right
now.
It's getting more complex, and I've only got two minutes left.
Aleksandar
See you anon.
Kooky
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
21 Apr 2005 05:20:00 AM |
|
|
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1113996662.237664.327130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
I reinsert this from your last-but-one response:-
Uh! Oh! What am I going to do now! My theory
http://www.masstheory.org/oos_1_english.pdf predicts that mass
increases to
infinity as fields are accelerated to speed c...
Now what is this if it is not A SPEED LIMIT IN [THE] MATERIAL WORLD?
It's make-your-mind-up time, baby!
That's more like the speed limit of individual vehicles, for example. You
can't judge that there is speed limit in material world if your car can't go
faster than 200 km/h, and you've never driven in anything faster than that.
It's a feature of that particular kind of car. But is that the fastest way
to get anywhere?
So c is the speed limit only for some objects, but not for all?
[snip]
Relativity is all about connecting unrelated events with the speed limit.
Utter nonsense. It is precisely about the opposite: about pointing out
that events can only be related if something with lightspeed can get
from on to the other.
Lorentz transformation doesn't know anything about previous history of
interaction (acceleration)
Agreed.
and it must be applied on all motion, regardless
of any causality.
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.
[snip]
What do you regard these "mass-making" fields, BTW? Electromagnetic
fields? Fields UNDERLYING e-m (and gravitational?) fields, whose
propagation speed is itself c? (You don't say explicitly in chapter 1,
pp.3, 4, that the propagation speed of the "mass-fields" is c.)
I'm sure I mentioned somewhere that I most directly think about electrons,
protons, and all other subatomic particles as generic fields. ...The speed c
cannot be constant, it can be easily proved
Where can one find that proof?
that information cannot travel
with constant speed through distorted fields,
What do you mean with "distorted fields"?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
18 Apr 2005 07:15:06 AM |
|
|
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1113816404.731448.295660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
But on p.7 you say "There is no speed limit in [the] material world."
The invariance of the speed of light means that c+c = c.
Wrong.
A ray of light
travels from point O to points A and B which are 1 light-second away from O.
A ..............O ..............B
Distance between A nd B is 600,000 m. The time in which both receive the
same information was 1 sec. What's the *relative* speed between the two
light rays, at which information traveled? Isn't it 600,000 m/sec as
observed from O?
Yes, it is. But that has nothing to do with c+c=c.
Your error is in thinking that the relative speed between two objects
travelling at v1 and v2 is simply the difference v1-v2. That's the
closing velocity, but not the relative velocity.
Even if nothing can be accelerated towards point A to achieve speed greater
that c (that would destroy the fields),
How and why would it destroy them, and which fields again?
it has nothing to do with relative
speed of a totally different event which is taking place on the opposite
side.
No one ever said it has.
Relativity binds *unrelated events* with use of the *postulate* of
invariance of the speed of light. Just think about it.
I thought about it. It is wrong. Relativity specifically *unbinds*
unrelated events.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandar Vukelja" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
18 Apr 2005 07:38:37 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:d408ca$rlr$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Even if nothing can be accelerated towards point A to achieve speed
greater
that c (that would destroy the fields),
How and why would it destroy them, and which fields again?
Read "Elementary Concepts of Material World 1" and don't ask me "again" what
I answered before.
<snip the rest>
Aleksandar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
18 Apr 2005 10:12:22 AM |
|
|
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:d408ca$rlr$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Even if nothing can be accelerated towards point A to achieve speed
greater
that c (that would destroy the fields),
How and why would it destroy them, and which fields again?
Read "Elementary Concepts of Material World 1" and don't ask me "again" what
I answered before.
Why should I read your diatribes as long as you refuse to admit your
errors?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandar Vukelja" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
18 Apr 2005 08:20:01 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:d408ca$rlr$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
A ray of light
travels from point O to points A and B which are 1 light-second away
from O.
A ..............O ..............B
Distance between A nd B is 600,000 m. The time in which both receive the
same information was 1 sec. What's the *relative* speed between the two
light rays, at which information traveled? Isn't it 600,000 m/sec as
observed from O?
Yes, it is.
^^^^^^^^^^
Did you get up on the left foot this morning?
A relativist would assume that, because he knows that light is travelling in
opposite directions, relative speed the light rays is calculated by the
formula v = (c+c) / (1+ cc/c^2) = c = 300,000 m/s.
Non-relativist, simply knows that distance between the light rays is 600,000
m after 1 sec. Thus relative speed is 600,000 m/s
Aleksandar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Capizzi" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
18 Apr 2005 12:42:15 PM |
|
|
"Aleksandar Vukelja" <spam@spam.net> wrote in message
news:4263b40a$0$60145$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:d408ca$rlr$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
A ray of light
travels from point O to points A and B which are 1 light-second away
from O.
A ..............O ..............B
Distance between A nd B is 600,000 m. The time in which both receive
the
same information was 1 sec. What's the *relative* speed between the two
light rays, at which information traveled? Isn't it 600,000 m/sec as
observed from O?
Yes, it is.
^^^^^^^^^^
Did you get up on the left foot this morning?
A relativist would assume that, because he knows that light is travelling
in
opposite directions, relative speed the light rays is calculated by the
formula v = (c+c) / (1+ cc/c^2) = c = 300,000 m/s.
Here is one of those nitpicking points you complain about. Last time I
checked,
the speed of light was not 300,000 m/sec. Seems nobody caught that one. If
you
want to use the number 300,000, then you need units of kilometers/sec, or if
you
want m/sec, then you need to specify 300,000,000 of them.
Non-relativist, simply knows that distance between the light rays is
600,000
m after 1 sec. Thus relative speed is 600,000 m/s
Non-relativist might call it relative speed, but that is inappropriate. It
is the closing
velocity, and it is only valid in the frame of reference of O. Because of
the velocity
composition law, both frame A and frame B see the other as moving with the
relative
velocity 300,000,000 m/sec. This is a direct consequence of the fact that
the rapidity
of the velocity c is infinite. Velocity composition is non-linear, but
rapidity addition
is purely linear. Consequently, addition of any rapidity to one that is
already infinite
has no effect on the result. It is still infinite, and the velocity it
transforms to is still
c. As an interesting aside, the relationship between velocity and rapidity
can be
expressed using the Mercator transform, a mapping that predates even Newton
by
most of a century.
Aleksandar
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
18 Apr 2005 09:12:02 AM |
|
|
"Aleksandar Vukelja" <spam@spam.net> wrote in message news:4263b40a$0$60145$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:d408ca$rlr$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
A ray of light
travels from point O to points A and B which are 1 light-second away
from O.
A ..............O ..............B
Distance between A nd B is 600,000 m. The time in which both receive the
same information was 1 sec. What's the *relative* speed between the two
light rays, at which information traveled? Isn't it 600,000 m/sec as
observed from O?
Yes, it is.
^^^^^^^^^^
Did you get up on the left foot this morning?
A relativist would assume that, because he knows that light is travelling in
opposite directions, relative speed the light rays is calculated by the
formula v = (c+c) / (1+ cc/c^2) = c = 300,000 m/s.
No, he would definitely not.
Non-relativist, simply knows that distance between the light rays is 600,000
m after 1 sec. Thus relative speed is 600,000 m/s
That is closing speed. Everyone agrees about that.
You don't understand the velocity composition concept,
and I'm not going to explain. Actually I hope no one will
try to explain, because seeing you suffer is much more fun.
Suffer, Kakavulja, suffer ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
18 Apr 2005 10:13:56 AM |
|
|
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:d408ca$rlr$3@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
A ray of light
travels from point O to points A and B which are 1 light-second away
from O.
A ..............O ..............B
Distance between A nd B is 600,000 m. The time in which both receive the
same information was 1 sec. What's the *relative* speed between the two
light rays, at which information traveled? Isn't it 600,000 m/sec as
observed from O?
Yes, it is.
^^^^^^^^^^
Did you get up on the left foot this morning?
A relativist would assume that, because he knows that light is travelling in
opposite directions, relative speed the light rays is calculated by the
formula v = (c+c) / (1+ cc/c^2) = c = 300,000 m/s.
Sorry, I was very unclear above. My "yes, it is" referred to the first
part, until "1 sec".
Non-relativist, simply knows that distance between the light rays is 600,000
m after 1 sec. Thus relative speed is 600,000 m/s
No, that's the closing speed, not the relative speed. Try to
understand the difference.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
20 Apr 2005 06:34:35 AM |
|
|
BTW, why am I getting a author:s...@spam.net listing these days, when
I click on your name in Google Groups?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandar Vukelja" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
20 Apr 2005 06:43:28 AM |
|
|
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1113996875.298571.71210@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
BTW, why am I getting a author:s...@spam.net listing these days, when
I click on your name in Google Groups?
Because I use readfreenews account from Outlook Express, and google groups
from web browser. It doesn't really matter, it's the same "me". I'll answer
you in more detail on your other post tonight, I have some things to do now.
Regards,
Aleksandar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
23 Apr 2005 06:56:09 AM |
|
|
I thought it might be father (~6,500 posts) and son (~20). :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
15 Apr 2005 11:25:23 AM |
|
|
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1113561782.353327.219640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
If the increase-of-mass theory is to be in agreement with
(particle-accelerator) experiment, it must show that masses increase to
infinity as they approach the speed of light. Which means that there
IS a physical speed limit (=c).
(We detect this mass-increase from the extra bash they give when they
crash into stationary particles.)
Uh! Oh! What am I going to do now! My theory
http://www.masstheory.org/oos_1_english.pdf predicts that mass increases to
infinity as fields are accelerated to speed c...
What fields? What does "field" mean, in your opinion?
But... Wait! Isn't that what you said is proved by experiment?
Experiments never "prove" something (although such statements are often
seen in pop science). They merely provide evidence.
Cheers,
Aleksandar
PS
It is postulate of relativity theory that speed of light is independent from
the speed of observer, that I am in disagreement with.
Feel free to provide experimental data contradicting that.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aleksandar Vukelja" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
15 Apr 2005 12:19:11 PM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:d3optj$ogd$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
"Too Many Kooks Spoil the Brothel" <brightice2001@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1113561782.353327.219640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
If the increase-of-mass theory is to be in agreement with
(particle-accelerator) experiment, it must show that masses increase to
infinity as they approach the speed of light. Which means that there
IS a physical speed limit (=c).
(We detect this mass-increase from the extra bash they give when they
crash into stationary particles.)
Uh! Oh! What am I going to do now! My theory
http://www.masstheory.org/oos_1_english.pdf predicts that mass increases
to
infinity as fields are accelerated to speed c...
What fields? What does "field" mean, in your opinion?
From the pdf:
Definition 1.2. Matter or field is union of lines which intersect in a
single point.
In real world: electrons, protons, etc.
But... Wait! Isn't that what you said is proved by experiment?
Experiments never "prove" something (although such statements are often
seen in pop science). They merely provide evidence.
I have a feeling that if I say that sky is blue, you'll object. You'll say
it's black. At night. The main reason I still allow myself to reply is that
you have, so far, mainly been relatively decent, compared to a few others.
What's your deal?
It is postulate of relativity theory that speed of light is independent
from
the speed of observer, that I am in disagreement with.
Feel free to provide experimental data contradicting that.
I don't have funds to experimentally verify my own theories (those which
should be in masstheory 2). But how about experiments by someone else?
Sagnac experiment? http://www.wbabin.net/babin/sagnac.htm
Aleksandar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
15 Apr 2005 12:43:46 PM |
|
|
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
I have a feeling that if I say that sky is blue, you'll object. You'll say
it's black. At night.
I've seen it be blue at night during high auroral activity. Looking through
the telescope... not black, but blue!
Vukelja--It's always a good idea to provide references for cited data to
backup an argument posted on USENET. It is interesting, if not compelling,
that there has never been a prediction of Special Relativity that was
contradicted by an observation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig " |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
16 Apr 2005 11:17:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:43:46 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
I have a feeling that if I say that sky is blue, you'll object. You'll say
it's black. At night.
I've seen it be blue at night during high auroral activity. Looking through
the telescope... not black, but blue!
Vukelja--It's always a good idea to provide references for cited data to
backup an argument posted on USENET. It is interesting, if not compelling,
that there has never been a prediction of Special Relativity that was
contradicted by an observation.
Hmm...how about GPS?
They use Lorentz relativity, not SRT.
Ronald R. Hatch tells us so: http://www.egtphysics.net
I am missing counter-arguments, honestly.
w.
--
sigs suck
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
16 Apr 2005 12:32:07 PM |
|
|
<Helmut Wabnig> wrote in message news:tfe261p6f8geg7dm81k9jm855nmn0a7v12@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:43:46 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
I have a feeling that if I say that sky is blue, you'll object. You'll say
it's black. At night.
I've seen it be blue at night during high auroral activity. Looking through
the telescope... not black, but blue!
Vukelja--It's always a good idea to provide references for cited data to
backup an argument posted on USENET. It is interesting, if not compelling,
that there has never been a prediction of Special Relativity that was
contradicted by an observation.
Hmm...how about GPS?
They use Lorentz relativity, not SRT.
Ronald R. Hatch tells us so: http://www.egtphysics.net
Ronald Astral Catastrophism Hatch?
http://www.quantavolution.org/vol_02/cosmicheretics_5_16.htm
| Patten and his collaborators, of whom the most prominent were
| Ronald Hatch and Loren Steinhauer, were fully committed to
| astral catastrophism and built a complete succession of
| scenarios around orbital intersections of Mars and Earth,
| beginning with the deluge of Noah.
http://www.csinfo.org/Longday.htm
| Other subsequent writers have tried to defend and extend
| similar ideas, including some Christian writers (e.g.,
| Donald Patten, Ronald Hatch, and Loren Steinhauer in their
| book The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophes,
| published by Baker in 1973).
I am missing counter-arguments, honestly.
Hatch is an ether addict.
So there you have some counter-arguments, honestly.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig " |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
16 Apr 2005 01:32:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:32:07 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
It is interesting, if not compelling,
that there has never been a prediction of Special Relativity that was
contradicted by an observation.
Hmm...how about GPS?
They use Lorentz relativity, not SRT.
Ronald R. Hatch tells us so: http://www.egtphysics.net
Ronald Astral Catastrophism Hatch?
http://www.quantavolution.org/vol_02/cosmicheretics_5_16.htm
| Patten and his collaborators, of whom the most prominent were
| Ronald Hatch and Loren Steinhauer, were fully committed to
| astral catastrophism and built a complete succession of
| scenarios around orbital intersections of Mars and Earth,
| beginning with thedelugeofNoah.
http://www.csinfo.org/Longday.htm
| Other subsequent writers have tried to defend and extend
| similar ideas, including some Christian writers (e.g.,
| Donald Patten, Ronald Hatch, and Loren Steinhauer in their
| book The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophes,
| published by Baker in 1973).
I am missing counter-arguments, honestly.
Hatch is an ether addict.
So there you have some counter-arguments, honestly.
Dirk Vdm
No, not really. The arguments are missing.
I know that Hatch is dubious, (thanks for info anyway)
but he is in Uncle Al's relativity link list.
Seriously, the question is open to be answered.
Another citation from sciforums.com:
2inquisitive
The Devil is in the details (1,317 posts)
11-20-04, 07:03 PM
You guys do know how the 38.4 microseconds per day figure was
determined, don't you? It was not calculated by any method, SR, GR,
or LR. It was actually timed, it was measured. A single satellite was
launched in 1978 with a celsium clock. The clock could run at two
rates, one uncorrected and one rate that was synthesized to correspond
to what relativity predicted. The clock was running at the uncorrected
rate when launched and would be switched over to the
relativity-predicted rate if that rate seemed to be correct. The clock
was never switched to the relativity-predicted rate because it was
incorrect. The clock ran at the uncorrected rate, synchronized to an
Earth-clock, for the 20 day timing mission. During the mission,
the satellite clock continously ran 38.4 microseconds per day faster
than the Earth clock it was synchronized with. Thereafter, all
satellite clocks were precalibrated to run 38.4 microseconds per day
slower than an Earth clock so all the clocks would remain
synchronized.
Last edited by 2inquisitive : 11-21-04 at 12:26 AM.
citation end
Those 38,4 are mainly the sum of gravity and speed corrections.
The speed correction obviously could not be predicted correctly
by the relativity experts, because they would have used a SRT
setup with 2 observers. Actually the calculation as given by Ashby
and others is between Earth CENTER and the moving satellite.
We are distributed on Earth surface, not sitting in the center,
and there is a missing link in all the explanations of the geometry
(simplified to circular) and gamma calculations.
w.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
16 Apr 2005 01:40:45 PM |
|
|
<Helmut Wabnig> wrote in message news:gbl261hqplq9773vm6ckg2ga3ld8perigj@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:32:07 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
It is interesting, if not compelling,
that there has never been a prediction of Special Relativity that was
contradicted by an observation.
Hmm...how about GPS?
They use Lorentz relativity, not SRT.
Ronald R. Hatch tells us so: http://www.egtphysics.net
Ronald Astral Catastrophism Hatch?
http://www.quantavolution.org/vol_02/cosmicheretics_5_16.htm
| Patten and his collaborators, of whom the most prominent were
| Ronald Hatch and Loren Steinhauer, were fully committed to
| astral catastrophism and built a complete succession of
| scenarios around orbital intersections of Mars and Earth,
| beginning with thedelugeofNoah.
http://www.csinfo.org/Longday.htm
| Other subsequent writers have tried to defend and extend
| similar ideas, including some Christian writers (e.g.,
| Donald Patten, Ronald Hatch, and Loren Steinhauer in their
| book The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophes,
| published by Baker in 1973).
I am missing counter-arguments, honestly.
Hatch is an ether addict.
So there you have some counter-arguments, honestly.
Dirk Vdm
No, not really. The arguments are missing.
I know that Hatch is dubious, (thanks for info anyway)
but he is in Uncle Al's relativity link list.
I know.
Uncle Al does not always sufficiently check the links he
throws at the idiots.
Seriously, the question is open to be answered.
Another citation from sciforums.com:
2inquisitive
The Devil is in the details (1,317 posts)
11-20-04, 07:03 PM
You guys do know how the 38.4 microseconds per day figure was
determined, don't you? It was not calculated by any method, SR, GR,
or LR. It was actually timed, it was measured. A single satellite was
launched in 1978 with a celsium clock. The clock could run at two
rates, one uncorrected and one rate that was synthesized to correspond
to what relativity predicted. The clock was running at the uncorrected
rate when launched and would be switched over to the
relativity-predicted rate if that rate seemed to be correct. The clock
was never switched to the relativity-predicted rate because it was
incorrect. The clock ran at the uncorrected rate, synchronized to an
Earth-clock, for the 20 day timing mission. During the mission,
the satellite clock continously ran 38.4 microseconds per day faster
than the Earth clock it was synchronized with. Thereafter, all
satellite clocks were precalibrated to run 38.4 microseconds per day
slower than an Earth clock so all the clocks would remain
synchronized.
Last edited by 2inquisitive : 11-21-04 at 12:26 AM.
citation end
Those 38,4 are mainly the sum of gravity and speed corrections.
The speed correction obviously could not be predicted correctly
by the relativity experts, because they would have used a SRT
setup with 2 observers. Actually the calculation as given by Ashby
and others is between Earth CENTER and the moving satellite.
We are distributed on Earth surface, not sitting in the center,
and there is a missing link in all the explanations of the geometry
(simplified to circular) and gamma calculations.
Ashby is an ether addict. An idiot.
Read some elementary basics.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "shuba" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
16 Apr 2005 02:13:48 PM |
|
|
Dirk Vdm wrote:
**followup-to s.p.rel set (hint, hint)**
Ashby is an ether addict. An idiot.
Read some elementary basics.
Umm, I don't think so, unless the "Ashby" referred to is someone
different than Neil Ashby, an expert on the subject of the Global
Positioning System.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
---Tim Shuba---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
16 Apr 2005 02:30:51 PM |
|
|
"shuba" <tim.shuba@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message news:tim.shuba-629A04.14134716042005@corp.supernews.com...
Dirk Vdm wrote:
**followup-to s.p.rel set (hint, hint)**
Ashby is an ether addict. An idiot.
Read some elementary basics.
Umm, I don't think so, unless the "Ashby" referred to is someone
different than Neil Ashby, an expert on the subject of the Global
Positioning System.
My mistake :-)
I meant Hatch of course.
I have read Ashby's article
Dirk Vdm
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/Web/directory/faculty/ashby_n.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
---Tim Shuba---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig " |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
17 Apr 2005 11:36:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 19:30:51 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"shuba" <tim.shuba@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message news:tim.shuba-629A04.14134716042005@corp.supernews.com...
Dirk Vdm wrote:
**followup-to s.p.rel set (hint, hint)**
Ashby is an ether addict. An idiot.
Read some elementary basics.
Umm, I don't think so, unless the "Ashby" referred to is someone
different than Neil Ashby, an expert on the subject of the Global
Positioning System.
My mistake :-)
I meant Hatch of course.
I have read Ashby's article
Dirk Vdm
Happy Hatch bashing !
(I will return later)
Have to end this for now, poor Vukelja may not know why we quarrel,
BTW, Vuko, ZERO is not the same as NOTHING,
in physics and mathematics,
ZERO = NOTHING applies only to our bank accounts.
w.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
16 Apr 2005 11:51:34 AM |
|
|
Dear Helmut Wabnig:
<Helmut Wabnig> wrote in message
news:tfe261p6f8geg7dm81k9jm855nmn0a7v12@4ax.com...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:43:46 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
Aleksandar Vukelja wrote:
I have a feeling that if I say that sky is blue,
you'll object. You'll say it's black. At night.
I've seen it be blue at night during high
auroral activity. Looking through the
telescope... not black, but blue!
Vukelja--It's always a good idea to provide
references for cited data to backup an
argument posted on USENET. It is
interesting, if not compelling, that there
has never been a prediction of Special
Relativity that was contradicted by an
observation.
Hmm...how about GPS?
They use Lorentz relativity, not SRT.
Lorentz relativity doesn't do gravity. General Relativity does.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helmut Wabnig " |
|
| Title: Re: Some bad news for Aleksandar Vukelja (I think) |
16 Apr 2005 12:38:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:51:34 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
............
references for cited data to backup an
argument posted on USENET. It is
interesting, if not compelling, that there
has never been a prediction of Special
Relativity that was contradicted by an
observation.
Hmm...how about GPS?
They use Lorentz relativity, not SRT.
Lorentz relativity doesn't do gravity. General Relativity does.
David A. Smith
correct, there is no doubt about the GR corrections for gravity,
Hatch (and others) mainly critizise the SRT moving clock correction
component for GPS.
in short: a moving clock is in the satellite and a observer is on the
surface of the Earth, circular orbits assumed, circular Earth assumed.
SRT, as beeing operative between a moving clock and an observer,
would have to result in a different clock correction for almost every
user on earth.
I reality the clock are corrected (for movement) as if all the users
would sit in the Earth center. Clearly in contradiction to the SRT.
And GPS works, no doubt.
for details read http://www.egtphysics.net
(Thanks to Uncle Al for that link)
w.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
