| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2007 09:03:14 AM |
| Object: |
TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You are in fact implying that the velocity of light is *not*
independent
of the motion of its source or of the motion of the observer!
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. In this case, an
INERTIAL observer outside the elevator would measure c for the speed of
the light inside the elevator, but an accelerated observer inside the
elevator would not. Indeed, it is this fact that permits one to compute
the blueshift.
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
You have already confirmed this above but just say yes a few more
times. Your zombies need repetitions as you know. If you do not teach
them properly Dirk Moortel and Sam Wormley may again start claiming
that only the velocity (not the speed) varies with the gravitational
potential whereas Paul Andersen may again try to destroy the
relativity cult by declaring that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) is wrong.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
20 Mar 2007 04:10:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20:35 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. [...]
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
a rather long and detailed derivation of this back in 1998:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3220d2
'c' is a universal constant.
It also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. 'Why?'..... nobody has
bothered to investigate since Einstein derailed physics.
Nobody has measured OWLS ...let alone OWLS from a moving source. ..so you are
making incorrect claims about the 'speed of light'.
TWLS is dead constant because the BaTh says it ought to be.
Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
EM FoR?
..
[...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
he published GR in 1915.
Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
Most of the arrogance here comes from the relativist ratpack. What does that
say?
Tom Roberts
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
20 Mar 2007 04:33:08 AM |
|
|
On Mar 20, 1:10 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20:35 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. [...]
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
a rather long and detailed derivation of this back in 1998:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3...
It has been awhile...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
-5 points.
'c' is a universal constant.
It also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. 'Why?'..... nobody has
bothered to investigate since Einstein derailed physics.
#2, #5, #18 - A one-sentence triple slam! 11 points.
Nobody has measured OWLS ...let alone OWLS from a moving source. ..so you are
making incorrect claims about the 'speed of light'.
#2, #5 - A common theme for Ralph. 17 points.
TWLS is dead constant because the BaTh says it ought to be.
I think #4 applies but I lack the motivation to rationalize it. Still
17 points.
Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
#2, #5 - Again. Imagine that. 23 points.
How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
EM FoR?
#14 - What the ***** is an EM FoR? I ask not because I don't know what
a frame of reference is, but because I don't know what your personal
definition is today. 33 points
.
[...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
he published GR in 1915.
Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
Most of the arrogance here comes from the relativist ratpack. What does that
say?
#18 - Again. 43 points.
Tom Roberts
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
1 point because that sig is so hypocritical. I sometimes make up my
own rules.
44 points. Not bad, Ralph.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
20 Mar 2007 09:05:33 AM |
|
|
In sci.logic, Eric Gisse
<jowr.pi@gmail.com>
wrote
on 20 Mar 2007 02:33:08 -0700
<1174383188.648205.314560@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
On Mar 20, 1:10 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20:35 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
Well, sort of. Remember that in SR the constancy of c holds only in
inertial frames, and the elevator is not inertial. [...]
So Roberts the frequency shift is due to the VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT,
in accordance with both
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
and Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2).
Hmmm. Why you keep emphasizing the speed of light is not constant is a
mystery to me -- it is well known that the speed of light is constant
only in locally inertial frames (as I said in that quote). I even posted
a rather long and detailed derivation of this back in 1998:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dd9168f6ec3...
It has been awhile...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
-5 points.
'c' is a universal constant.
It also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source. 'Why?'..... nobody has
bothered to investigate since Einstein derailed physics.
#2, #5, #18 - A one-sentence triple slam! 11 points.
Nobody has measured OWLS ...let alone OWLS from a moving source. ..so you are
making incorrect claims about the 'speed of light'.
#2, #5 - A common theme for Ralph. 17 points.
TWLS is dead constant because the BaTh says it ought to be.
I think #4 applies but I lack the motivation to rationalize it. Still
17 points.
I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
t = d/v
t1 = d/(c+v)
t2 = d/(c-v)
t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
Granted, Henry may *not* be concluding this, and either simply stating
it or putting something in BaTh that is not in my strawman theory,
Newtonian ballistic theory.
Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
#2, #5 - Again. Imagine that. 23 points.
Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
BaTh looks awfully complicated.
How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
EM FoR?
#14 - What the ***** is an EM FoR? I ask not because I don't know what
a frame of reference is, but because I don't know what your personal
definition is today. 33 points
How does one define a non-EM FoR anyway? We're surrounded by virtual
photons (almost all of chemistry depends on charges and bonds; the sole
exception might be things like the N14=>C14 conversion done high in our
atmosphere, and that's not quite chemistry :-) ).
.
[...] Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) [...]
You clearly do not have a clue -- that equation is at best an
APPROXIMATION, and is applicable only to a very limited class of
physical situations. But no matter, because Einstein got it right when
he published GR in 1915.
Why don't you grow up and actually STUDY modern physics and how
relativity has progressed since Einstein? A tiny fraction of what you
write is trivially true, and the rest is complete nonsense. And your
arrogant tone is utterly unjustified. You will never learn anything by
wasting your time posting nonsense to the net. Nor will your drivel ever
convince anyone of anything (except that you are a fool)....
Most of the arrogance here comes from the relativist ratpack. What does that
say?
#18 - Again. 43 points.
Tom Roberts
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
1 point because that sig is so hypocritical. I sometimes make up my
own rules.
44 points. Not bad, Ralph.
--
#191,
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
20 Mar 2007 06:14:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:05:33 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.logic, Eric Gisse
<jowr.pi@gmail.com>
wrote
on 20 Mar 2007 02:33:08 -0700
<1174383188.648205.314560@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
On Mar 20, 1:10 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20:35 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
TWLS is dead constant because the BaTh says it ought to be.
I think #4 applies but I lack the motivation to rationalize it. Still
17 points.
I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
t = d/v
t1 = d/(c+v)
t2 = d/(c-v)
t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
Ghost, you silly old bugger, you still can't get it into your head that there
is NO aether.
The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
in both directions.
SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
(NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
I would have thought this would be obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
Granted, Henry may *not* be concluding this, and either simply stating
it or putting something in BaTh that is not in my strawman theory,
Newtonian ballistic theory.
Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
#2, #5 - Again. Imagine that. 23 points.
Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
BaTh looks awfully complicated.
Hahahahohoho!
Hurse and Taylor got a Nobel for getting everything about HST1913+16 completely
wrong.
When do I get mine for correcting their mistakes?
How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
EM FoR?
#14 - What the ***** is an EM FoR? I ask not because I don't know what
a frame of reference is, but because I don't know what your personal
definition is today. 33 points
How does one define a non-EM FoR anyway? We're surrounded by virtual
photons (almost all of chemistry depends on charges and bonds; the sole
exception might be things like the N14=>C14 conversion done high in our
atmosphere, and that's not quite chemistry :-) ).
Unlike common 'frames' EM frames tend to be local and limited in size.
EM frames exist to varying degrees everywhere except in Wilsonian nort-holes.
Any EM FoR, no matter how weak, will affect the speed of EM travelling through
it.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
21 Mar 2007 12:45:00 AM |
|
|
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:14:02 GMT
<eop003pj2ndamq066thbtf5jeitls4em3j@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:05:33 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.logic, Eric Gisse
<jowr.pi@gmail.com>
wrote
on 20 Mar 2007 02:33:08 -0700
<1174383188.648205.314560@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
On Mar 20, 1:10 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 04:20:35 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net>
TWLS is dead constant because the BaTh says it ought to be.
I think #4 applies but I lack the motivation to rationalize it. Still
17 points.
I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
t = d/v
t1 = d/(c+v)
t2 = d/(c-v)
t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
Ghost, you silly old bugger, you still can't get it into your head that there
is NO aether.
I'm just doing the math here. You do have a point, though.
The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
in both directions.
SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
(NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
So will any OWLS experiment unless the source is in fact moving.
The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
I would have thought this would be obvious to anyone with even half a brain.
Granted, Henry may *not* be concluding this, and either simply stating
it or putting something in BaTh that is not in my strawman theory,
Newtonian ballistic theory.
Almost all variable star curves agree with BaTh predictions...
#2, #5 - Again. Imagine that. 23 points.
Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
BaTh looks awfully complicated.
Hahahahohoho!
Hurse and Taylor got a Nobel for getting everything about HST1913+16 completely
wrong.
When do I get mine for correcting their mistakes?
Sweden will contact you at the appropriate time.
How much more evidence do you need before you accept that light behaves
ballistically in any TRUE VACUUM, even if it might not always do so in a local
EM FoR?
#14 - What the ***** is an EM FoR? I ask not because I don't know what
a frame of reference is, but because I don't know what your personal
definition is today. 33 points
How does one define a non-EM FoR anyway? We're surrounded by virtual
photons (almost all of chemistry depends on charges and bonds; the sole
exception might be things like the N14=>C14 conversion done high in our
atmosphere, and that's not quite chemistry :-) ).
Unlike common 'frames' EM frames tend to be local and limited in size.
EM frames exist to varying degrees everywhere except in Wilsonian nort-holes.
Any EM FoR, no matter how weak, will affect the speed of EM travelling through
it.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
--
#191,
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
21 Mar 2007 02:27:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:45:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:14:02 GMT
I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
t = d/v
t1 = d/(c+v)
t2 = d/(c-v)
t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
Ghost, you silly old bugger, you still can't get it into your head that there
is NO aether.
I'm just doing the math here. You do have a point, though.
The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
in both directions.
SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
(NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
So will any OWLS experiment unless the source is in fact moving.
There is a problem with checking to see if the TWO clocks are in synch.
That effectively makes it a TW experiment.
It can be done however if one either assumes the remote clock does not change
calibration when moved into position or uses Einstein's 'absolute' clock
synching method.
PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
The best way to do this is to compare OWLS from two differently moving sources.
Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
BaTh looks awfully complicated.
Hahahahohoho!
Hurse and Taylor got a Nobel for getting everything about HST1913+16 completely
wrong.
When do I get mine for correcting their mistakes?
Sweden will contact you at the appropriate time.
I'm waiting for the phone to ring...
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
21 Mar 2007 11:31:34 AM |
|
|
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:27:48 GMT
<a2n103dqe4rhgoe9rmmobrpk3ll7kjf75a@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:45:00 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:14:02 GMT
I'll admit I wonder how Henri can conclude that the average velocity for
a TWLS is c if the path speeds are c+v and c-v, since
t = d/v
t1 = d/(c+v)
t2 = d/(c-v)
t = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) = 2dc/(c^2-v^2) != 2d/c
Ghost, you silly old bugger, you still can't get it into your head that there
is NO aether.
I'm just doing the math here. You do have a point, though.
The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
in both directions.
SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
(NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
So will any OWLS experiment unless the source is in fact moving.
There is a problem with checking to see if the TWO clocks are in synch.
No need to check. So long as they were synchronized to begin with from
the midpoint of the observation platform, and there are no gravitational
anomalies, they will stay synchronized.
That effectively makes it a TW experiment.
It can be done however if one either assumes the remote clock does not change
calibration when moved into position or uses Einstein's 'absolute' clock
synching method.
PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
So you're suggesting that a TWLS will show c but an OLWS might not?
You might have a point regarding resolution. If the
measured speed of an OWLS is c+v, then the TWLS will
measure (c^2-v^2)/c in straight nBaT (I don't know about
BaTh). If v is on the order of 10^-4 c, then v^2 is on
the order of 10^-8 c^2.
However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
A lot faster. :-)
The best way to do this is to compare OWLS from two differently moving sources.
Depends on how many variables he throws at the curves. :-) However,
Ockham's Razor is pretty clear: the simplest theory is preferred out of
multiple theories, if both explain the facts.
BaTh looks awfully complicated.
Hahahahohoho!
Hurse and Taylor got a Nobel for getting everything about HST1913+16 completely
wrong.
When do I get mine for correcting their mistakes?
Sweden will contact you at the appropriate time.
I'm waiting for the phone to ring...
OK.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191,
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
22 Mar 2007 06:44:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:31:34 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
in both directions.
SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
(NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
So will any OWLS experiment unless the source is in fact moving.
There is a problem with checking to see if the TWO clocks are in synch.
No need to check. So long as they were synchronized to begin with from
the midpoint of the observation platform, and there are no gravitational
anomalies, they will stay synchronized.
You are learning well Ghost.
That effectively makes it a TW experiment.
It can be done however if one either assumes the remote clock does not change
calibration when moved into position or uses Einstein's 'absolute' clock
synching method.
PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
So you're suggesting that a TWLS will show c but an OLWS might not?
You might have a point regarding resolution. If the
measured speed of an OWLS is c+v, then the TWLS will
measure (c^2-v^2)/c in straight nBaT (I don't know about
BaTh). If v is on the order of 10^-4 c, then v^2 is on
the order of 10^-8 c^2.
Ghost, why would you want to measure the TWLS from a moving source?
If you meant 'a moving mirror' then fair enough.
However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
A lot faster. :-)
And sometimes these particles 'spontaneously decay' and emit gamma particles,
eh, Ghost?
Why? Do they hit an air moleculae and stop before decaying.... or does the
apparatus itself constitute a local EM reference frame in which all EM travels
at or near c?
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
22 Mar 2007 10:39:49 PM |
|
|
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:44:33 GMT
<6o4603hvl2mlu5s5hckb1g514q1d52hm43@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:31:34 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
The light leaves the source at c wrt both the source and the mirror. It bounces
of the mirror at c wrt both the mirror and the source. Its travel time is d/c
in both directions.
SO ANY TWLS EXPERIMENT WILL GIVE A PRECISE VALUE FOR THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT C.
(NOTE, should be carried out inertially and in pretty flat gravity)
So will any OWLS experiment unless the source is in fact moving.
There is a problem with checking to see if the TWO clocks are in synch.
No need to check. So long as they were synchronized to begin with from
the midpoint of the observation platform, and there are no gravitational
anomalies, they will stay synchronized.
You are learning well Ghost.
That effectively makes it a TW experiment.
It can be done however if one either assumes the remote clock does not change
calibration when moved into position or uses Einstein's 'absolute' clock
synching method.
PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
So you're suggesting that a TWLS will show c but an OLWS might not?
You might have a point regarding resolution. If the
measured speed of an OWLS is c+v, then the TWLS will
measure (c^2-v^2)/c in straight nBaT (I don't know about
BaTh). If v is on the order of 10^-4 c, then v^2 is on
the order of 10^-8 c^2.
Ghost, why would you want to measure the TWLS from a moving source?
If you meant 'a moving mirror' then fair enough.
Why not? Unless you want me to measure OWLS instead, which
is another, probably better, possibility. Of course we
won't see much, if other experiments are any indication;
the Large Hadron Collider in particular throws 7 TeV
into protons but can't make them move any faster than c
(and can't even achieve that), so therefore SR is the
most probable theory. (Put that baldly it sounds silly,
of course, but that's the gist of the issue; SR has a lot
going for it, and you're going to have to show quite a
bit more regarding BaTh than I for one have seen thus far.)
However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
A lot faster. :-)
And sometimes these particles 'spontaneously decay' and emit gamma particles,
eh, Ghost?
Depends on the particles.
Why? Do they hit an air moleculae and stop before decaying.... or does the
apparatus itself constitute a local EM reference frame in which all EM travels
at or near c?
The particles are moving at high speed with respect to the apparatus.
However, it is possible that the magnetic "booster field" is generating
another "local EM reference frame", assuming that concept makes any
sense at all. (It does have to move near lightspeed so as to boost the
particles, if the particles are charged, of course.)
AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
--
#191,
Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
23 Mar 2007 12:41:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:39:49 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:44:33 GMT
<6o4603hvl2mlu5s5hckb1g514q1d52hm43@4ax.com>:
No need to check. So long as they were synchronized to begin with from
the midpoint of the observation platform, and there are no gravitational
anomalies, they will stay synchronized.
You are learning well Ghost.
PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
So you're suggesting that a TWLS will show c but an OLWS might not?
You might have a point regarding resolution. If the
measured speed of an OWLS is c+v, then the TWLS will
measure (c^2-v^2)/c in straight nBaT (I don't know about
BaTh). If v is on the order of 10^-4 c, then v^2 is on
the order of 10^-8 c^2.
Ghost, why would you want to measure the TWLS from a moving source?
If you meant 'a moving mirror' then fair enough.
Why not? Unless you want me to measure OWLS instead, which
is another, probably better, possibility. Of course we
won't see much, if other experiments are any indication;
the Large Hadron Collider in particular throws 7 TeV
into protons but can't make them move any faster than c
(and can't even achieve that), so therefore SR is the
most probable theory. (Put that baldly it sounds silly,
of course, but that's the gist of the issue; SR has a lot
going for it, and you're going to have to show quite a
bit more regarding BaTh than I for one have seen thus far.)
The BaTh says charges cannot be accelerated to greater than c on purely enegry
grounds. ...and SR has nothing going for it....
However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
A lot faster. :-)
And sometimes these particles 'spontaneously decay' and emit gamma particles,
eh, Ghost?
Depends on the particles.
Why? Do they hit an air moleculae and stop before decaying.... or does the
apparatus itself constitute a local EM reference frame in which all EM travels
at or near c?
The particles are moving at high speed with respect to the apparatus.
However, it is possible that the magnetic "booster field" is generating
another "local EM reference frame", assuming that concept makes any
sense at all. (It does have to move near lightspeed so as to boost the
particles, if the particles are charged, of course.)
AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
No man made vacumm even approaches conditions below the Wilson density
threshold.
Even fields start to become fragmented there.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
23 Mar 2007 10:39:22 PM |
|
|
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:41:45 GMT
<vtp6031vgoh6ctr1k83j9q8er1nem90rme@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:39:49 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:44:33 GMT
<6o4603hvl2mlu5s5hckb1g514q1d52hm43@4ax.com>:
No need to check. So long as they were synchronized to begin with from
the midpoint of the observation platform, and there are no gravitational
anomalies, they will stay synchronized.
You are learning well Ghost.
PS: he wasn't aware he discovered a way to absolutely synch separated clocks.
The good news: a TWLS with a moving source should easily show an anomaly.
You obviously haven't done the math Ghost.
Even today, it is right on the experimental limits of resolution.
So you're suggesting that a TWLS will show c but an OLWS might not?
You might have a point regarding resolution. If the
measured speed of an OWLS is c+v, then the TWLS will
measure (c^2-v^2)/c in straight nBaT (I don't know about
BaTh). If v is on the order of 10^-4 c, then v^2 is on
the order of 10^-8 c^2.
Ghost, why would you want to measure the TWLS from a moving source?
If you meant 'a moving mirror' then fair enough.
Why not? Unless you want me to measure OWLS instead, which
is another, probably better, possibility. Of course we
won't see much, if other experiments are any indication;
the Large Hadron Collider in particular throws 7 TeV
into protons but can't make them move any faster than c
(and can't even achieve that), so therefore SR is the
most probable theory. (Put that baldly it sounds silly,
of course, but that's the gist of the issue; SR has a lot
going for it, and you're going to have to show quite a
bit more regarding BaTh than I for one have seen thus far.)
The BaTh says charges cannot be accelerated to greater than c on purely enegry
grounds. ...and SR has nothing going for it....
Ah. So the rest of that 7 TeV goes precisely...where?
However, it's not that difficult to speed particles faster than 10^-4 c.
A lot faster. :-)
And sometimes these particles 'spontaneously decay' and emit gamma particles,
eh, Ghost?
Depends on the particles.
Why? Do they hit an air moleculae and stop before decaying.... or does the
apparatus itself constitute a local EM reference frame in which all EM travels
at or near c?
The particles are moving at high speed with respect to the apparatus.
However, it is possible that the magnetic "booster field" is generating
another "local EM reference frame", assuming that concept makes any
sense at all. (It does have to move near lightspeed so as to boost the
particles, if the particles are charged, of course.)
AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
No man made vacumm even approaches conditions below the Wilson density
threshold.
Even fields start to become fragmented there.
Ah, I see. And what is this threshold? How many atoms per cubic meter?
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
--
#191,
GNU and improved.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
25 Mar 2007 08:26:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:39:22 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.logic, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:41:45 GMT
<vtp6031vgoh6ctr1k83j9q8er1nem90rme@4ax.com>:
Why not? Unless you want me to measure OWLS instead, which
is another, probably better, possibility. Of course we
won't see much, if other experiments are any indication;
the Large Hadron Collider in particular throws 7 TeV
into protons but can't make them move any faster than c
(and can't even achieve that), so therefore SR is the
most probable theory. (Put that baldly it sounds silly,
of course, but that's the gist of the issue; SR has a lot
going for it, and you're going to have to show quite a
bit more regarding BaTh than I for one have seen thus far.)
The BaTh says charges cannot be accelerated to greater than c on purely enegry
grounds. ...and SR has nothing going for it....
Ah. So the rest of that 7 TeV goes precisely...where?
well I should have explained in more detail.
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because a reverse
field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied field.
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
AFAIK, most experiments are performed in as high a vacuum as practical.
No man made vacumm even approaches conditions below the Wilson density
threshold.
Even fields start to become fragmented there.
Ah, I see. And what is this threshold? How many atoms per cubic meter?
It's not so much the 'atoms' as the fields that exists there.
My theory says that fields are kind of 'quantized' and cannot be continually
weakened according to the inverse square law. A point is reached where they
fragment and 'true emptiness' (Wilsonian Nort-holes)
temporarily appears in their place.
Packages of light travel ballistically through nort-holes...and partly destroy
them as they goes...Everywhere else, light is affected to some extent by the
strength of local EM FoRs and their refractive index.
Come on Ghost! You have to admit its a good theory....
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
26 Mar 2007 04:29:58 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
In the _real_ world, you cannot accelerate anything to c relative
to anything because it takes infinite energy to do so.
A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because a reverse
field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied field.
Nonsense.
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
In jets from active galaxies, matter can move at speeds quite close to c.
In accretion rings around black holes, matter can move close to c.
The universe is a violent place, with lots of matter moving at extreme speed.
Why the hell are you claiming all this nonsense, Henri?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
26 Mar 2007 05:25:08 PM |
|
|
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message news:eu9e0m$1s44$1@news01.tp.hist.no...
Henri Wilson wrote:
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
In the _real_ world, you cannot accelerate anything to c relative
to anything because it takes infinite energy to do so.
A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because a reverse
field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied field.
Nonsense.
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
In jets from active galaxies, matter can move at speeds quite close to c.
In accretion rings around black holes, matter can move close to c.
The universe is a violent place, with lots of matter moving at extreme speed.
Why the hell are you claiming all this nonsense, Henri?
Because there's always someone who replies ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
26 Mar 2007 05:48:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very complicated
(as the late Bilge once explained).
However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
you derive )
In the _real_ world, you cannot accelerate anything to c relative
to anything because it takes infinite energy to do so.
Plenty of things go faster than c due to particle collisions. Muons for
instance.
A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because a reverse
field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied field.
Nonsense.
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
so what?
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
quickly as they might otherwise do.
Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near c wrt any
thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
In jets from active galaxies, matter can move at speeds quite close to c.
That's a willusion....but some things can move close to c if you like.
In accretion rings around black holes, matter can move close to c.
The universe is a violent place, with lots of matter moving at extreme speed.
Nothing wrong with that. A small proportion of things would be expected to move
close to c.
Why the hell are you claiming all this nonsense, Henri?
Becasue Maxwell did the same with molecular velocities in a gas...look up
'statistical mechanics'....
Paul
PS: Has the ice thawed yet?
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
26 Mar 2007 08:48:58 PM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message =
news:gaig039ua5r90ggkt6mug81d8fet2e9d0d@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
=20
Henri Wilson wrote:
=20
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original =
position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.=20
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
=20
The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
No, unless the rocket burns itself to the last atom, and=20
one atom is not a rocket.
The maximum available energy is 1/2mv^2.
You have know Newton's third law, there is a lot of
energy going up the exhaust pipe.
When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its =
propulsion
jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as =
well.
Correct, but the acceleration is the wrong way.
So we have a conundrum for the Tusseladd, what is the ideal
cone or pyramid or other shape of solid fuel that that we can
enclose in paper or card (consider that mass to be negligible
and burns away) that will minimise the velocity of the exhaust=20
and maximise the velocity of the apex of the cone?
Working backwards, we assume (for the fun of it) we have=20
a tetrahedron (or other shape) of 4 atoms or molecules, 3 of=20
which go in the reverse direction and one forward when they
separate. The penultimate step is this cluster of four resting
on a base of six, so 6 back and 4 forward, the one before=20
that has a base of ?... and so on.
Of course, all velocities are relative, there is no universal frame,
so the speed of the rocket relative to it's own exhaust is 2v.
So when we place our paper rocket on surface of infinite
mass, the first layer of spend fuel should have zero velocity
relative to the surface and the rocket cone of unburned
fuel above it will have momentum 2mv. Rockets do of=20
course accelerate, that's rocket science. :-)
Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very =
complicated
(as the late Bilge once explained).
However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used =
to
provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, =
can never
be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. =
I'll let
you derive )=20
=20
In the _real_ world, you cannot accelerate anything to c relative
to anything because it takes infinite energy to do so.
=20
Plenty of things go faster than c due to particle collisions. Muons =
for
instance.
=20
A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because =
a reverse
field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied =
field.
Nonsense.
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
=20
No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no =
doubt,
so what?
=20
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
=20
Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an =
ever
diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
=20
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high =
energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear =
explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
=20
The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from =
decaying as
quickly as they might otherwise do.
=20
Very little matter in the whole universe is moving at anywhere near =
c wrt any
thing else...statistical,,...somewhat like molecules in a gas at 3K.
In jets from active galaxies, matter can move at speeds quite close to =
c.
=20
That's a willusion....but some things can move close to c if you like.
=20
In accretion rings around black holes, matter can move close to c.
The universe is a violent place, with lots of matter moving at extreme =
speed.
=20
Nothing wrong with that. A small proportion of things would be =
expected to move
close to c.=20
Why the hell are you claiming all this nonsense, Henri?
=20
Becasue Maxwell did the same with molecular velocities in a gas...look =
up
'statistical mechanics'....
=20
Paul
=20
PS: Has the ice thawed yet?
=20
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
27 Mar 2007 07:58:02 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very complicated
(as the late Bilge once explained).
However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
you derive )
You are simply wrong.
Show the trivial proof, please.
In the _real_ world, you cannot accelerate anything to c relative
to anything because it takes infinite energy to do so.
Plenty of things go faster than c due to particle collisions. Muons for
instance.
A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls because a reverse
field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied field.
Nonsense.
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
so what?
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
Yawn.
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
quickly as they might otherwise do.
We were not talking about decay.
We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS, Astrologer making predictions. |
27 Mar 2007 08:41:55 AM |
|
|
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote in message =
news:eub4cr$2ab4$1@news01.tp.hist.no...
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
=20
Henri Wilson wrote:
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original =
position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.=20
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
=20
The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its =
propulsion
jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as =
well.
Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very =
complicated
(as the late Bilge once explained).
However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is =
used to
provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, =
can never
be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. =
I'll let
you derive )=20
=20
You are simply wrong.
Show the trivial proof, please.
=20
In the _real_ world, you cannot accelerate anything to c relative
to anything because it takes infinite energy to do so.
=20
Plenty of things go faster than c due to particle collisions. Muons =
for
instance.
=20
A particle cannot be acceleraetd to >c in an electric foedls =
because a reverse
field bubble forms around the particle and neutralises the applied =
field.
Nonsense.
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
=20
No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation =
no doubt,
so what?
=20
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
=20
Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an =
ever
diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
=20
Yawn.
=20
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high =
energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear =
explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
=20
The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from =
decaying as
quickly as they might otherwise do.
=20
We were not talking about decay.
We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
Speeds that exceed 300,000 km/sec:=20
http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
You never did understand the Earth goes around the Sun, did you?
=20
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
27 Mar 2007 05:01:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:58:02 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very complicated
(as the late Bilge once explained).
However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
you derive )
You are simply wrong.
Show the trivial proof, please.
Hohohahaha!
You can't see the trivial proof....!!!!
No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
so what?
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
Yawn.
To put it another way, when the speed of the charge approaches the maximum
speed at which the field can act, then clearly the field cannot achieve the
same acceleration of the charge as it did at low speeds.
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
quickly as they might otherwise do.
We were not talking about decay.
You were about to.
We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
That's OK. 'c' is impossible to achieve in an accelerator.
Paul
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
28 Mar 2007 03:15:06 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:58:02 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very complicated
(as the late Bilge once explained).
However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
you derive )
You are simply wrong.
Show the trivial proof, please.
Hohohahaha!
You can't see the trivial proof....!!!!
No.
I challenge you to show it. (In a Galilean world.)
No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
so what?
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
Yawn.
To put it another way, when the speed of the charge approaches the maximum
speed at which the field can act, then clearly the field cannot achieve the
same acceleration of the charge as it did at low speeds.
You can repeat this meaningless statement as many times you want,
it is still proven wrong by what you snipped above:
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
And why do you keep repeating the phrase "the maximum speed at
which the field can act" when you must know that it is void of
meaning in an accelerator?
The field is there before the particle enters the RF-cavity,
an it acts whenever the particle is in the cavity, so what
speed of which field are you talking about?
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
quickly as they might otherwise do.
We were not talking about decay.
You were about to.
We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
That's OK. 'c' is impossible to achieve in an accelerator.
So according to you, a 2 GeV muon travels faster than c
in the atmosphere, but slower than c in an accelerator.
Go figure.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
28 Mar 2007 04:08:55 AM |
|
|
On Mar 28, 12:15 am, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
[...]
So according to you, a 2 GeV muon travels faster than c
in the atmosphere, but slower than c in an accelerator.
Go figure.
At some point you have to stop being surprised. Henri has been
maintaining contradictory positions on USENET for years, most likely
he has been doing his entire life.
Even if he realized and understood the contradictions, it wouldn't
matter - he is used to lying. The only thing that really needs
answering is "what the hell does he hope to accomplish?"
What is amusing is that when I first entered the physics degree
program here at UAF, ol' Ralph [Oh yea he posts under a pseudonym
too!] was spewing his nonsense. Here I am, roughly a year from
graduating [and with nearly 2 years inbetween were not in university]
and Henri is _still_ spewing the same exact nonsense.
The only difference between now and then is I have an education now
and all Ralph has is the diplomas he forged in mspaint.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
29 Mar 2007 04:55:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:15:06 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:58:02 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very complicated
(as the late Bilge once explained).
However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
you derive )
You are simply wrong.
Show the trivial proof, please.
Hohohahaha!
You can't see the trivial proof....!!!!
No.
I challenge you to show it. (In a Galilean world.)
it should be obvious to you.
No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
so what?
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
Yawn.
To put it another way, when the speed of the charge approaches the maximum
speed at which the field can act, then clearly the field cannot achieve the
same acceleration of the charge as it did at low speeds.
You can repeat this meaningless statement as many times you want,
it is still proven wrong by what you snipped above:
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
The energy goes into particle KE plus that required to maintain the reverse
field.. ..so it shows up in bolometer measurements.
YOU simply explain the phenomenon buy claiming a 'relativistic mass increase'.
And why do you keep repeating the phrase "the maximum speed at
which the field can act" when you must know that it is void of
meaning in an accelerator?
The field is there before the particle enters the RF-cavity,
an it acts whenever the particle is in the cavity, so what
speed of which field are you talking about?
If you can tell me what a 'field ' is made of, I will answer you.
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
quickly as they might otherwise do.
We were not talking about decay.
You were about to.
We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
That's OK. 'c' is impossible to achieve in an accelerator.
So according to you, a 2 GeV muon travels faster than c
in the atmosphere, but slower than c in an accelerator.
Go figure.
The atmospheric ones originate in high energy collisions between cosmic
particles traveling at any speed wrt Earth. Naturely many muons will start out
traveling at speeds even greater that the cosmic ones.
So where is your problem Paul? Why do you believe their speeds should be
restricted to c wrt Earth? The muons don't give a stuff whether the Earth is
there or not.
Paul
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul B. Andersen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
30 Mar 2007 06:34:25 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:15:06 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:58:02 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:29:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
A rocket ship cannot be made to go faster than c wrt its original position even
if it uses all its mc^2 energy to accelerate the last molecule.
Nonsense.
In your Newtonian (Galilean) world there is no upper limit
for the speed of a rocket.
Or would you like to prove otherwise?
The maximum available energy is mc^2, right?
When the ship accelerates in its propelled direction, so does its propulsion
jet (even though it moves in the opposite direction wrt the ship).
So the fuel has to accelerate not just hte ship body but itself as well.
Since the ship is losing mass continualy, this problem become very complicated
(as the late Bilge once explained).
However it is a thermodynamic fact that no matter how the fuel is used to
provide propulsion, the ship's final body mass, no matter how small, can never
be made to exceed c wrt its original position. (The proof is trivial. I'll let
you derive )
You are simply wrong.
Show the trivial proof, please.
Hohohahaha!
You can't see the trivial proof....!!!!
No.
I challenge you to show it. (In a Galilean world.)
it should be obvious to you.
It isn't.
Assume:
The rocket has an ideal engine which is capable of converting
the fuel mass to EM-radiation according to E = mc^2.
When a mass m << mass of rocket is converted to radiation energy,
the momentum of the radiated energy is E/c = mc in the instant
inertial rest frame of the rocket.
I still challenge you to prove your claim that according to
Newtonian mechanics (Galilean relativity), the ship's final body mass,
no matter how small, can never be made to exceed c wrt its original rest frame.
My claim is that if the rocket is driven with constant
acceleration, then the speed of the rocket in the original rest frame
will according to NM be 2.3c when the final mass of the rocket is
10% of its initial value.
Generally v(t) = c*ln(M/m(t)) where M is the initial mass
and m(t) is the mass at the time t.
Go on. Prove me wrong!
No Paul, most of the energy goes into making the 'bubble' larger.
You people say there is a relativistic mass increase. Same equation no doubt,
so what?
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
Both the particle and the bubble have to be accelerated...and by an ever
diminishing nett field strength. That's why it's hard to achieve.
Yawn.
To put it another way, when the speed of the charge approaches the maximum
speed at which the field can act, then clearly the field cannot achieve the
same acceleration of the charge as it did at low speeds.
You can repeat this meaningless statement as many times you want,
it is still proven wrong by what you snipped above:
When a particle with charge q is accelerated through a potential
difference V, it gains the energy qV regardless of its speed.
This is continuously proven in a lot of accelerators right now.
The RF-cavities never cease to transfer energy to the particles,
even when the speed is a few mm/s below c.
This proves that there is no "reverse field bubble" cancelling
the applied field at high speeds.
The energy goes into particle KE plus that required to maintain the reverse
field.. ..so it shows up in bolometer measurements.
YOU simply explain the phenomenon buy claiming a 'relativistic mass increase'.
So you are claiming that a charged particle never can exceed c
because it is surrounded by a 'field bubble' with energy which approaches
infinity when the speed approaches c.
A muon is a charged particle.
You claim it can exceed c.
Go figure.
And why do you keep repeating the phrase "the maximum speed at
which the field can act" when you must know that it is void of
meaning in an accelerator?
The field is there before the particle enters the RF-cavity,
an it acts whenever the particle is in the cavity, so what
speed of which field are you talking about?
If you can tell me what a 'field ' is made of, I will answer you.
So you admit that you can't defend your claim because you
don't know what you are talking about!
Muons can be accelerated to >c wrt their original positions in high energy
collisions. Maybe matter can be accelerated to > c in nuclear explosions.
Nonsense.
High energy muons are routinely produced in accelerators.
Their speeds are very well known - just below c.
(Storage ring - go figure.)
The huge magnetic field holds them together and stops them from decaying as
quickly as they might otherwise do.
We were not talking about decay.
You were about to.
We were talking about their speed which never exceeds c.
That's OK. 'c' is impossible to achieve in an accelerator.
So according to you, a 2 GeV muon travels faster than c
in the atmosphere, but slower than c in an accelerator.
Go figure.
The atmospheric ones originate in high energy collisions between cosmic
particles traveling at any speed wrt Earth. Naturely many muons will start out
traveling at speeds even greater that the cosmic ones.
So where is your problem Paul?
You have a problem.
According to you, a 2GeV can move at < c relative to the detector
that measures its energy, and a 2GeV can move > c relative to the detector,
or in other words - the energy of a muon is not related to its speed.
You are babbling incoherent nonsense, Henri.
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: TOM ROBERTS ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT |
30 Mar 2007 06:11:09 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:34:25 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:15:06 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrot | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
