Science > Physics > Upper thermal limit of temperature ("Abolute infinity")
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Feb 2006 02:01:17 PM |
| Object: |
Upper thermal limit of temperature ("Abolute infinity") |
Since Absolute Zero Kelvin is the point in which atomic movement ceases
to exist, shouldn't there be a temperature in which the atomic
movements is the speed of light? Matter can not be heated to a
temperature greater than this since matter can't exceed the speed of
light.
Is this phenomena (a theoretical "Absolute infinity") observed in
physics?
.
|
|
| User: "James Copeland" |
|
| Title: Re: Upper thermal limit of temperature ("Abolute infinity") |
10 Feb 2006 04:53:37 PM |
|
|
<zutalors212@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139598323.075431.287730@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Since Absolute Zero Kelvin is the point in which atomic movement ceases
to exist,
This is a common misunderstanding. Atomic and molecular motion does not
cease to exist at absolute zero (which, btw, is impossible to attain anyway
according to the 3rd law of thermodynamics). But even if possible, quantum
mechanics requires that atoms and molecules retain a minimum, non-zero
energy known as the "zero-point energy." Certainly electrons still continue
to move about nuclei; atoms continue to vibrate about their equilibrium
positions in an atomic lattice with their zero-point energy; molecules
continue to possess their internal zero-point vibrational energies and,
depending on symmetry, possible non-zero rotational zero-point energy as
well. Etc. These continuing minimum motions at absolute zero are required by
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics.
Jim C.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Upper thermal limit of temperature ("Abolute infinity") |
10 Feb 2006 04:11:41 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Since Absolute Zero Kelvin is the point in which atomic movement ceases
to exist, shouldn't there be a temperature in which the atomic
movements is the speed of light? Matter can not be heated to a
temperature greater than this since matter can't exceed the speed of
light.
Is this phenomena (a theoretical "Absolute infinity") observed in
physics?
Matter cannot attain the speed of light no matter how much energy
is pumped into it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Upper thermal limit of temperature ("Abolute infinity") |
11 Feb 2006 09:44:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Since Absolute Zero Kelvin is the point in which atomic movement ceases
to exist, shouldn't there be a temperature in which the atomic
movements is the speed of light? Matter can not be heated to a
temperature greater than this since matter can't exceed the speed of
light.
Is this phenomena (a theoretical "Absolute infinity") observed in
physics?
Matter cannot attain the speed of light no matter how much energy
is pumped into it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Upper thermal limit of temperature ("Abolute infinity") |
12 Feb 2006 12:00:39 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 03:44:35 GMT
<DayHf.769719$_o.591618@attbi_s71>:
zutalors212@yahoo.com wrote:
Since Absolute Zero Kelvin is the point in which atomic movement ceases
to exist, shouldn't there be a temperature in which the atomic
movements is the speed of light? Matter can not be heated to a
temperature greater than this since matter can't exceed the speed of
light.
Is this phenomena (a theoretical "Absolute infinity") observed in
physics?
Matter cannot attain the speed of light no matter how much energy
is pumped into it.
At least, such is the theory (and it's a very
well-substantiated theory, too). So far, a 7 TeV proton
is only going at lightspeed (or just below it), and that's
probably the best we can do with the LHC. :-)
(It's worth noting we can't reach absolute zero, either.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Upper thermal limit of temperature ("Abolute infinity") |
12 Feb 2006 07:28:25 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
At least, such is the theory (and it's a very
well-substantiated theory, too). So far, a 7 TeV proton
is only going at lightspeed (or just below it), and that's
probably the best we can do with the LHC. :-)
It is worth clarifying that no experiment has ever shown
7 TeV proton with velocity equal to c... close, but never
at c.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Upper thermal limit of temperature ("Abolute infinity") |
12 Feb 2006 03:00:17 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:28:25 GMT
<ZJGHf.770275$_o.718025@attbi_s71>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
At least, such is the theory (and it's a very
well-substantiated theory, too). So far, a 7 TeV proton
is only going at lightspeed (or just below it), and that's
probably the best we can do with the LHC. :-)
It is worth clarifying that no experiment has ever shown
7 TeV proton with velocity equal to c... close, but never
at c.
Yes, well, part of the problem I have is measurement inaccuracy.
But a 7 TeV proton should, if one uses Newtonian principles,
be going far faster than lightspeed -- about 122 c, or thereabouts.
Since one has never observed such one has to question Newtonian
principles. :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Upper thermal limit of temperature ("Abolute infinity") |
12 Feb 2006 03:15:28 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:dvi4c3-hrb.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Yes, well, part of the problem I have is measurement inaccuracy.
| But a 7 TeV proton should, if one uses Newtonian principles,
| be going far faster than lightspeed -- about 122 c, or thereabouts.
What?
Since when do Newtonian principles say that the entire
wind energy is all pushing the sailboat at once?
That would be a pretty fast sailboat for a 10 mph
wind that was 100 miles wide.
:)
How much of that 7 TeV can the proton actually be "pushed" by?
(about the size of a proton right?)
:)
Newton would not make that much of a mistake.
I think you should think about such "wind".
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
13 Feb 2006 12:00:59 AM |
|
|
Note subject change.
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:15:28 -0500
<U86dnYp5quzwOHLeRVn-qA@comcast.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:dvi4c3-hrb.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Yes, well, part of the problem I have is measurement inaccuracy.
| But a 7 TeV proton should, if one uses Newtonian principles,
| be going far faster than lightspeed -- about 122 c, or thereabouts.
What?
Since when do Newtonian principles say that the entire
wind energy is all pushing the sailboat at once?
That would be a pretty fast sailboat for a 10 mph
wind that was 100 miles wide.
:)
The energy is not all applied at once; in fact, an older accelerator
is being used as an injector. I'd have to look as to the entering
energy. It's a fairly complex process because as the particle
energy and velocity goes up the magnetic field of the focussing
coils has to increase.
How much of that 7 TeV can the proton actually be "pushed" by?
(about the size of a proton right?)
:)
The 7 TeV is applied incrementally.
Newton would not make that much of a mistake.
I think you should think about such "wind".
:)
I am still looking for the results of two 469 MeV protons colliding,
versus the (at this point, presumably, simulated) results of two
7 TeV protons colliding. Absent that, the only thing I can point to
with any certainty is the discovery of the tau lepton, with
a mass of 1.784 GeV.
The method of the tau lepton's discovery actually involved
electrons; the mass of an electron is 0.510998918 MeV,
which means that a Newtonian lightspeed electron would only
have 250.5 keV of energy -- far less than the tau lepton.
So this looks better for my purposes anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_lepton
Now, since the electrons are only capable of moving at
lightspeed, and since Newtonian lightspeed electrons (and
positrons) only have 250.5 keV of energy each, that leaves
1.783499 GeV unaccounted for. Care to take a stab at explaining
this anomaly? Or are you willing to entertain the notion that
an electron traveling at less than lightspeed can contain
more energy than a theoretical Newtonian lightspeed electron?
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
13 Feb 2006 09:06:53 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:nhj5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| The energy is not all applied at once; in fact, an older accelerator
| is being used as an injector. I'd have to look as to the entering
| energy. It's a fairly complex process because as the particle
| energy and velocity goes up the magnetic field of the focussing
| coils has to increase.
Yup,
it has to "corner" that is one problem to begin with.
:)
| The 7 TeV is applied incrementally.
What speed does such energy "push" at?
| I am still looking for the results of two 469 MeV protons colliding,
| versus the (at this point, presumably, simulated) results of two
| 7 TeV protons colliding. Absent that, the only thing I can point to
| with any certainty is the discovery of the tau lepton, with
| a mass of 1.784 GeV.
Don't some cases produce a sort of "nothing left" problem?
| The method of the tau lepton's discovery actually involved
| electrons; the mass of an electron is 0.510998918 MeV,
| which means that a Newtonian lightspeed electron would only
| have 250.5 keV of energy -- far less than the tau lepton.
| So this looks better for my purposes anyway.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_lepton
|
| Now, since the electrons are only capable of moving at
| lightspeed, and since Newtonian lightspeed electrons (and
| positrons) only have 250.5 keV of energy each, that leaves
| 1.783499 GeV unaccounted for. Care to take a stab at explaining
| this anomaly? Or are you willing to entertain the notion that
| an electron traveling at less than lightspeed can contain
| more energy than a theoretical Newtonian lightspeed electron?
That would be the wind that goes around the sailboat
and never hits it at all.
:)
Think about this way if you want to.
A 200 mile wide and 5 mile high wall
of wind about 30 ft deep moving at 80 miles an hour.
(what would the total energy of that bugger be!)
:)
A 10 square foot sail.
Does the entire wind hit that sail boat?
If it did.
dang that sailboat would be on the moon!
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
14 Feb 2006 10:00:14 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:06:53 -0500
<J6edncVgJtQbPW3eRVn-gg@comcast.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:nhj5c3-une.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| The energy is not all applied at once; in fact, an older accelerator
| is being used as an injector. I'd have to look as to the entering
| energy. It's a fairly complex process because as the particle
| energy and velocity goes up the magnetic field of the focussing
| coils has to increase.
Yup,
it has to "corner" that is one problem to begin with.
:)
The cornering is done by quadrupole magnetic fields, focusing
the beam.
| The 7 TeV is applied incrementally.
What speed does such energy "push" at?
Lightspeed. Since the particles never reach lightspeed I for one
don't see a problem here.
| I am still looking for the results of two 469 MeV protons colliding,
| versus the (at this point, presumably, simulated) results of two
| 7 TeV protons colliding. Absent that, the only thing I can point to
| with any certainty is the discovery of the tau lepton, with
| a mass of 1.784 GeV.
Don't some cases produce a sort of "nothing left" problem?
The tau was discovered because there was some energy left over
after looking at the products of the collision.
| The method of the tau lepton's discovery actually involved
| electrons; the mass of an electron is 0.510998918 MeV,
| which means that a Newtonian lightspeed electron would only
| have 250.5 keV of energy -- far less than the tau lepton.
| So this looks better for my purposes anyway.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_lepton
|
| Now, since the electrons are only capable of moving at
| lightspeed, and since Newtonian lightspeed electrons (and
| positrons) only have 250.5 keV of energy each, that leaves
| 1.783499 GeV unaccounted for. Care to take a stab at explaining
| this anomaly? Or are you willing to entertain the notion that
| an electron traveling at less than lightspeed can contain
| more energy than a theoretical Newtonian lightspeed electron?
That would be the wind that goes around the sailboat
and never hits it at all.
:)
Think about this way if you want to.
A 200 mile wide and 5 mile high wall
of wind about 30 ft deep moving at 80 miles an hour.
(what would the total energy of that bugger be!)
:)
A 10 square foot sail.
Does the entire wind hit that sail boat?
If it did.
dang that sailboat would be on the moon!
:)
Distance to moon: 3.85 * 10^8 m
Height of troposphere: about 2.5 * 10^4 m
Probability sailors can breathe during trip: 0.0065%
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
14 Feb 2006 11:28:36 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:1v99c3-k3e.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| The cornering is done by quadrupole magnetic fields, focusing
| the beam.
Still cornering.
:)
| > | The 7 TeV is applied incrementally.
| >
| > What speed does such energy "push" at?
|
| Lightspeed. Since the particles never reach lightspeed I for one
| don't see a problem here.
So,
the wind as blowing at the top speed, but the boat
is not matching such speed?
Seems to be a problem with the sails then
Maybe it is dragging in the magnetic winds that are
making it corner.
:)
| > That would be the wind that goes around the sailboat
| > and never hits it at all.
| >:)
| > Think about this way if you want to.
| > A 200 mile wide and 5 mile high wall
| > of wind about 30 ft deep moving at 80 miles an hour.
| > (what would the total energy of that bugger be!)
| >:)
| >
| > A 10 square foot sail.
| > Does the entire wind hit that sail boat?
| > If it did.
| > dang that sailboat would be on the moon!
| >:)
| >
|
| Distance to moon: 3.85 * 10^8 m
| Height of troposphere: about 2.5 * 10^4 m
| Probability sailors can breathe during trip: 0.0065%
But, what does the wall of wind have for energy?
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 08:00:18 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:28:36 -0500
<YNedndEVcYqnjm_enZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:1v99c3-k3e.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| The cornering is done by quadrupole magnetic fields, focusing
| the beam.
Still cornering.
:)
| > | The 7 TeV is applied incrementally.
| >
| > What speed does such energy "push" at?
|
| Lightspeed. Since the particles never reach lightspeed I for one
| don't see a problem here.
So,
the wind as blowing at the top speed, but the boat
is not matching such speed?
A metaphor that doesn't quite work, but yes, you can
put it that way.
Seems to be a problem with the sails then
Maybe it is dragging in the magnetic winds that are
making it corner.
:)
You are speculating. In any event, the LHC specifications
are quite clear; that proton will never meet lightspeed,
despite all the energy we can throw at it.
| > That would be the wind that goes around the sailboat
| > and never hits it at all.
| >:)
| > Think about this way if you want to.
| > A 200 mile wide and 5 mile high wall
| > of wind about 30 ft deep moving at 80 miles an hour.
| > (what would the total energy of that bugger be!)
| >:)
| >
| > A 10 square foot sail.
| > Does the entire wind hit that sail boat?
| > If it did.
| > dang that sailboat would be on the moon!
| >:)
| >
|
| Distance to moon: 3.85 * 10^8 m
| Height of troposphere: about 2.5 * 10^4 m
| Probability sailors can breathe during trip: 0.0065%
But, what does the wall of wind have for energy?
:)
Sailboats can coast.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 10:45:28 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:30nbc3-rmu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| You are speculating. In any event, the LHC specifications
| are quite clear; that proton will never meet lightspeed,
| despite all the energy we can throw at it.
The energy speed is what is the limiting factor in such though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 11:43:34 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:30nbc3-rmu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| You are speculating. In any event, the LHC specifications
| are quite clear; that proton will never meet lightspeed,
| despite all the energy we can throw at it.
The energy speed is what is the limiting factor in such though.
"Energy speed"?
You should perhaps look up how an RF cavity works. There is no "energy
bullet" that has to chase down the proton and catch it and deposit the
energy for this to work.
Here's a hint:
Take two copper plates and hook up a DC car battery up to the plates,
so that there is 12 V across the plates *all the time*. Drill a little
hole in the center of each plate where a vacuum pipe can be welded to
the plate, and then put an insulating gasket around the perimeter of
the plates and evacuate the air from the whole assembly -- interior of
pipes and the space between the plates.
Now run protons into the vacuum pipe, in the direction from the
positive to negative plates. The proton will gain a kinetic energy of
12 electron-volts (a unit like joules or calories) when it passes from
the hole in one plate to the hole in the other plate, even though there
is nothing between the plates except for a *static* electric field. The
field does not have to chase down the proton. It just sits in, and
permeates, the gap that that the proton travels through.
Now connect the two ends of the vacuum pipe in a big circle, with the
pipe surrounded by magnetic fields that steer the protons so they go
around in a circle without touching the pipe walls, and so that the
protons return to this pair of plates time and time and time again,
each time picking up 12 eV in that *static* electric field.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 11:51:11 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140025414.359444.319280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| "Energy speed"?
Yes, the physical speed that the energy itself is propagating at.
| You should perhaps look up how an RF cavity works. There is no "energy
| bullet" that has to chase down the proton and catch it and deposit the
| energy for this to work.
If the energy is not "moving" there is no physical reason for it to push
something at all.
| Here's a hint:
|
| Take two copper plates and hook up a DC car battery up to the plates,
| so that there is 12 V across the plates *all the time*. Drill a little
| hole in the center of each plate where a vacuum pipe can be welded to
| the plate, and then put an insulating gasket around the perimeter of
| the plates and evacuate the air from the whole assembly -- interior of
| pipes and the space between the plates.
| Now run protons into the vacuum pipe, in the direction from the
| positive to negative plates. The proton will gain a kinetic energy of
| 12 electron-volts (a unit like joules or calories) when it passes from
| the hole in one plate to the hole in the other plate, even though there
| is nothing between the plates except for a *static* electric field. The
| field does not have to chase down the proton. It just sits in, and
| permeates, the gap that that the proton travels through.
The field of electrons in motion.
PD,
You apparently think energy can occur without motion
occuring somewhere to create the energy itself?
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 01:26:23 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140025414.359444.319280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| "Energy speed"?
Yes, the physical speed that the energy itself is propagating at.
| You should perhaps look up how an RF cavity works. There is no "energy
| bullet" that has to chase down the proton and catch it and deposit the
| energy for this to work.
If the energy is not "moving" there is no physical reason for it to push
something at all.
But it does! The field is static. Not a thing changes in it.
| Here's a hint:
|
| Take two copper plates and hook up a DC car battery up to the plates,
| so that there is 12 V across the plates *all the time*. Drill a little
| hole in the center of each plate where a vacuum pipe can be welded to
| the plate, and then put an insulating gasket around the perimeter of
| the plates and evacuate the air from the whole assembly -- interior of
| pipes and the space between the plates.
| Now run protons into the vacuum pipe, in the direction from the
| positive to negative plates. The proton will gain a kinetic energy of
| 12 electron-volts (a unit like joules or calories) when it passes from
| the hole in one plate to the hole in the other plate, even though there
| is nothing between the plates except for a *static* electric field. The
| field does not have to chase down the proton. It just sits in, and
| permeates, the gap that that the proton travels through.
The field of electrons in motion.
What electrons in motion? There is no current in a pair of parallel
plates hooked up to a battery, at least not after the field has been
set up. A capacitor is a DC open circuit, or didn't you know that?
PD,
You apparently think energy can occur without motion
occuring somewhere to create the energy itself?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 01:33:08 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140031583.863241.168080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140025414.359444.319280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | "Energy speed"?
| >
| > Yes, the physical speed that the energy itself is propagating at.
| >
| > | You should perhaps look up how an RF cavity works. There is no "energy
| > | bullet" that has to chase down the proton and catch it and deposit the
| > | energy for this to work.
| >
| > If the energy is not "moving" there is no physical reason for it to push
| > something at all.
|
| But it does! The field is static. Not a thing changes in it.
LOL
your truly are funny!
If not a thing changes in a static field, how can it move anything
at all?
LOL
you truly are lost, and it looks like you have no clue about
motion..
LOL
| What electrons in motion?
The ones creating the static field you speak of.
| There is no current in a pair of parallel
| plates hooked up to a battery, at least not after the field has been
| set up. A capacitor is a DC open circuit, or didn't you know that?
Static fields have motion inside them
Too bad you don't get that fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 05:22:56 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140031583.863241.168080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140025414.359444.319280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | "Energy speed"?
| >
| > Yes, the physical speed that the energy itself is propagating at.
| >
| > | You should perhaps look up how an RF cavity works. There is no "energy
| > | bullet" that has to chase down the proton and catch it and deposit the
| > | energy for this to work.
| >
| > If the energy is not "moving" there is no physical reason for it to push
| > something at all.
|
| But it does! The field is static. Not a thing changes in it.
LOL
your truly are funny!
If not a thing changes in a static field, how can it move anything
at all?
That's what a field does. The force F on a object with charge q that is
sitting in an electric field E is given by
F = q*E.
LOL
you truly are lost, and it looks like you have no clue about
motion..
LOL
Really? What changes about the gravitational field of the Earth when
you drop a quarter in it? What's the thing that moves to push the
quarter?
| What electrons in motion?
The ones creating the static field you speak of.
They're not moving when the proton comes through. They're already in
place.
| There is no current in a pair of parallel
| plates hooked up to a battery, at least not after the field has been
| set up. A capacitor is a DC open circuit, or didn't you know that?
Static fields have motion inside them
"Static" in physics means "not changing with time".
What are the things moving in the gap where the field is?
Too bad you don't get that fact.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 05:46:51 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140045776.355123.56570@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140031583.863241.168080@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1140025414.359444.319280@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | > | "Energy speed"?
| > | >
| > | > Yes, the physical speed that the energy itself is propagating at.
| > | >
| > | > | You should perhaps look up how an RF cavity works. There is no
"energy
| > | > | bullet" that has to chase down the proton and catch it and deposit
the
| > | > | energy for this to work.
| > | >
| > | > If the energy is not "moving" there is no physical reason for it to
push
| > | > something at all.
| > |
| > | But it does! The field is static. Not a thing changes in it.
| >
| > LOL
| > your truly are funny!
| > If not a thing changes in a static field, how can it move anything
| > at all?
|
| That's what a field does. The force F on a object with charge q that is
| sitting in an electric field E is given by
| F = q*E.
It causes motion because it has internal motion.
Too bad you can't grasp that fact.
| > LOL
| > you truly are lost, and it looks like you have no clue about
| > motion..
| > LOL
|
| Really? What changes about the gravitational field of the Earth when
| you drop a quarter in it? What's the thing that moves to push the
| quarter?
Differentials in pressure and density actually.
What makes a rock stop the quarter.
LOL
| They're not moving when the proton comes through. They're already in
| place.
The motion is internal.
| > Static fields have motion inside them
|
| "Static" in physics means "not changing with time".
For the field yes.
not for the internal parts.
A car stopped and yet engine running at a stop light is static.
the engine can still move internally.
| What are the things moving in the gap where the field is?
free electrons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 07:39:12 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
If not a thing changes in a static field, how can it move anything
at all?
That doesn't even make sense. OBVIOUSLY a force can be static and yet
move things.
Just because dF/dt = 0 doesn't mean that dr/dt = 0! Not even in
Newtonian physics, where the equation is F = m d^2r/dt^2. There, dF/dt
= 0 only implies that d^3r/dt^3 = 0, which is totally different than
saying that dr/dt is or remains 0.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
15 Feb 2006 07:48:01 PM |
|
|
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140053952.776283.214880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Spaceman wrote:
| > If not a thing changes in a static field, how can it move anything
| > at all?
|
| That doesn't even make sense. OBVIOUSLY a force can be static and yet
| move things.
I know that,
PD is the one who says there is no motion occuring in such a field.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
16 Feb 2006 08:09:34 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140053952.776283.214880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Spaceman wrote:
| > If not a thing changes in a static field, how can it move anything
| > at all?
|
| That doesn't even make sense. OBVIOUSLY a force can be static and yet
| move things.
I know that,
PD is the one who says there is no motion occuring in such a field.
Not quite. You suggested that energy has to move at least as fast as
the object to get the object moving faster. I pointed out two examples
of stationary, static fields where energy is not moving at all that are
perfectly capable of accelerating an object in that field, even if they
are already moving along at a good clip.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
16 Feb 2006 09:58:19 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140098974.427252.132270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Not quite. You suggested that energy has to move at least as fast as
| the object to get the object moving faster. I pointed out two examples
| of stationary, static fields where energy is not moving at all that are
| perfectly capable of accelerating an object in that field, even if they
| are already moving along at a good clip.
The energy inside the static feild is moving, you have provided
no such "non moving" force.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
16 Feb 2006 10:36:52 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140098974.427252.132270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Not quite. You suggested that energy has to move at least as fast as
| the object to get the object moving faster. I pointed out two examples
| of stationary, static fields where energy is not moving at all that are
| perfectly capable of accelerating an object in that field, even if they
| are already moving along at a good clip.
The energy inside the static feild is moving, you have provided
no such "non moving" force.
Really? You know this how?
Tell you what: Hook up two plates to a car battery, separate them with
an insulating gasket, and tell me the energy you see moving between the
plates.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
16 Feb 2006 10:45:07 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140107812.212436.228690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140098974.427252.132270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | Not quite. You suggested that energy has to move at least as fast as
| > | the object to get the object moving faster. I pointed out two examples
| > | of stationary, static fields where energy is not moving at all that
are
| > | perfectly capable of accelerating an object in that field, even if
they
| > | are already moving along at a good clip.
| >
| > The energy inside the static feild is moving, you have provided
| > no such "non moving" force.
|
| Really? You know this how?
The effect tells us so.
Or do you believe in Force without Force?
| Tell you what: Hook up two plates to a car battery, separate them with
| an insulating gasket, and tell me the energy you see moving between the
| plates.
The energy you "see" is a joke you do not grasp I guess.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
16 Feb 2006 01:01:44 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140107812.212436.228690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1140098974.427252.132270@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | Not quite. You suggested that energy has to move at least as fast as
| > | the object to get the object moving faster. I pointed out two examples
| > | of stationary, static fields where energy is not moving at all that
are
| > | perfectly capable of accelerating an object in that field, even if
they
| > | are already moving along at a good clip.
| >
| > The energy inside the static feild is moving, you have provided
| > no such "non moving" force.
|
| Really? You know this how?
The effect tells us so.
Or do you believe in Force without Force?
I don't believe Force has to *move* to chase down something to change
its energy. You are apparently under the mistaken impression that Force
is always delivered by something that has shape, size, and texture.
| Tell you what: Hook up two plates to a car battery, separate them with
| an insulating gasket, and tell me the energy you see moving between the
| plates.
The energy you "see" is a joke you do not grasp I guess.
LOL
Hey, you're the one that says energy moves in the gap. I want to know
how you know that.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
16 Feb 2006 01:28:10 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140115495.413398.263100@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| I don't believe Force has to *move* to chase down something to change
| its energy. You are apparently under the mistaken impression that Force
| is always delivered by something that has shape, size, and texture.
You are lost with forceless force then.
I am not under any mistaken thought about you being
unable to comprehend that a force needs motion somewhere to be
a force at all.
That is your lack of logical thinking,
Not mine.
| Hey, you're the one that says energy moves in the gap. I want to know
| how you know that.
The effect of motion from other objects that were tested
inside such gap.
Of course, you think they just move magically without a
motion of anything else moving them.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
16 Feb 2006 03:22:34 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140115495.413398.263100@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| I don't believe Force has to *move* to chase down something to change
| its energy. You are apparently under the mistaken impression that Force
| is always delivered by something that has shape, size, and texture.
You are lost with forceless force then.
I am not under any mistaken thought about you being
unable to comprehend that a force needs motion somewhere to be
a force at all.
That is your lack of logical thinking,
Not mine.
| Hey, you're the one that says energy moves in the gap. I want to know
| how you know that.
The effect of motion from other objects that were tested
inside such gap.
Of course, you think they just move magically without a
motion of anything else moving them.
I see. So when I drop a quarter and it falls to the ground, there is
something *moving* that is pushing the quarter to the ground? What
would that be, exactly?
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
16 Feb 2006 03:27:07 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140124954.238259.271560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I see. So when I drop a quarter and it falls to the ground, there is
something *moving* that is pushing the quarter to the ground? What
would that be, exactly?
Better still, when you stand still on your bathroom scale,
where is the motion that's providing the force that's
maintaining the nonzero reading?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Tau Lepton -- Disproving Newtonian Energy Calculations |
16 Feb 2006 03:44:24 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:k66Jf.42070$T35.645908@news20.bellglobal.com...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140124954.238259.271560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I see. So when I drop a quarter and it falls to the ground, there is
something *moving* that is pushing the quarter to the ground? What
would that be, exactly?
Better still, when you stand still on your bathroom scale,
where is the motion that's providing the force that's
maintaining the nonzero reading?
same answer I gave to PD.
Why would I give you the nobel prize info like
such would be.
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
