FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
This is What Einstein Actually Did.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 37 of 37 [553 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 35, 36, 37
Author Message
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:34 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153160715.594334.65580@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1153152057.690555.91310@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > >
| > >
| > > | > | > Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
| > > | > | > I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile
| > > long
| > > | > | > dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and
race
| > > between
| > > | > | > a cosmic muon and a photon.
| > > | > |
| > > | > | Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
| > > | > | properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence
this
| > > | > | difference arises.
| > > | >
| > > | > Well, you see, the only difference is that ring muons run round in
| > > circles
| > > | > and that slows them down.
| > > |
| > > | Really?
| > >
| > > Yes, really.
| > >
| > > | How so? What force slows them down?
| > >
| > > I didn't mention a force. Do you still beat your mother?
| >
| > You didn't answer the question, Phuckwit Duck. I answered yours,
| > you asked "Really?" and I answered yes.
| >
| > Do you still beat your mother?
|
Do you still beat your mother?
Androcles
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:47 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 16 Jul 2006 21:58:24 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 19:02:38 -0700, "tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:



Well I can't really see the connection here between EM, heat sources and waves.

I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.

In such a case, you plot the interaction of an em wave with a
Dark Matter particle at the instant of collision. Assume that the
following is a graphical representation of what I just said:
) ) = Parts of the em waves moving through the medium of DM.
O = A DM particle having negative mass and no energy.
Below is an em wave moving toward DM particles. Since the
DM medium is everywhere in space, the very first em wave from
its source moves through the DM medium. It cannot do otherwise.
) O O O
The em waves move in succession through the same DM particles
and "light them up" each time they go through them. I cannot show
that here, so think of each em wave having crashed into each DM
particle just behind it instead of already having passed it:
O ) O ) O ) O )
At that instant, energy from the em wave is imparted to the DM
particle, causing it to become transformed into a real matter (RM)
particle from the virtual particle it was as DM, and in so doing, the
photon is created and it is visible to us because it has positive
energy and mass now, but just for an instant. As the wave passes
through, the photon reverts back to an DM negative mass, no
energy particle. That, IMHO, is how light is created.

Most would think you are plain crazy for expounding such a theory.

Yess! Wonderful, thanks. By historical precedence, that shows I am
more likely correct than wrong in what I say.

I wony condemn you outright because your DM might be something like my second
mass sub-dimension.
I say there are three mass and three time subdimensions. The mass ones are
connected with 'fields' and possibly light.. and the time ones are required to
explain timeflow.
I

How are you using the term, "dimension"? In physics, it is a
property that defines a physical quantity: any of a group of
properties or magnitudes, such as mass or time, that
collectively define a physical quantity. (Microsoft® Encarta®
Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.)

A dimension is a fundamental variable that can be used to express physical
properties.

Quote:
And how can there be "sub-dimensions" of dimensions? And
how can mass and time have any of those?

Easy.
If you're inside a spaceship, you can construct x, y and z axes. They have no
ABSOLUTE directions but they are effectively the same stuff.
Distances along any one axis can be added arithmetically. Distances along two
axes can be added VECTORILY.

You can also plot an x-t diagram with the two axes at right angles.. but you
cannot add time and x either vectorily or arithmetically...just like you can't
add apples to oranges.

So 'dimensions' are classes of totally orthogonal variables. Sub-dimensions are
similar but orthogonal quantities that can be added vectorily.



Quote:
I that why the universe appears black? Now I know....

Yes, that does logically follow what I said.

I was being sarcastic...If it is 'lit up' it wont be black.

Where it is "lit up" it won't be black, but there are many
places where there is no light, and since light has to be
created, we see the universe as a dark place except
where light exists.

No, Tom, I don't like that theory.

I'm happy to believe in light rays emanating from a source and traveling
invisibly across space.

Quote:
But it is only necessary to compare it with other objects when
obtaining some measurement, otherwise, we know they move
in the universe whether or not we compare them with another
object or consider them to be alone in their own frame, right?

No Tom. Speed only exists as a relative quantity.

Yes, but only because speed is a measurement of the rate of
motion and as such it is only a number.

No Tom, speed is a measurement of the rate of change of an object's position
relative to another object. We give it a number in terms of our defined
standards.

No, you give it a number to make it a measurement, as I said.
Without a number, it is not a measurement, just motion.

The number is derived according to an accepted convention. It is not
definition.

Quote:
However, the motion
is real and not just a math construct like its speed, and that you
cannot really deny, can you?

Motion is real. Relative speed is also just as real and is certainly not a
maths construct.

No, sorry, but relative speed is only a measurement, a math
construct, of the speed between objects.

Relative speed exists as an absolute quantity. Its MEASURED value depends on
the standards used. We need defined standards so that we can compare different
'relative speeds'.


Quote:
I had not heard of that since AE propounded a static universe.

You obviously haven't been listening.

Yes, I have, but you are the only one who has ever said
that here, that I know of. Why is that, do you think?

These days, there are just as many opponents of the BB theory as supporters.



Quote:
one to say that....

Plenty of people know the universe is not expanding into a space that is
expanding into another universe that is expanding into even more expanding
space......etc, etc....

You are raving mad in thinking that is possible or even anything
other than fantasy.

The expanding universe theory explains nothing anyway.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:35 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 17 Jul 2006 04:48:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
A wave is a graphical plot of the variation of a variable usually against time.

I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.


my explanation is better.
It says that individual photons exists. They possess intrinsic oscilations in
the form of standing waves that run from end to end.The frequency of a radio
signal is not directly related to this intrinsic frequency although it is
likely that all photons in a generated signal interact so they oscillate in
some kind of common phase.


Well, let's see. You say you don't know what's being plotted in the
case of a photon, and yet you think a photon is a *standing* wave
running from end to end. You haven't said what determines the ends of a
photon by the way. Moreover, a standing wave is created by the
superposition of two traveling waves, combined with physical
constraints (called boundary conditions) at the ends. So please make
sense of your statements above, Henri.

Photons have length and cross-section.
The influence of a photon extends to infinity in all direction but falls off
very rapidly with distance from the centre. In such cases we can only use terms
like 'half length' and 'half radius'.

I don't know how the ends would be defined for the purposes of bouncing a
standing wave but I can imagine a process that would enable that to happen.

For instance, maybe the speed of the intrinsic wave is inversely proportional
to the radius...so it approaches infinity at the photon 'ends'.


Quote:

PD


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:36 am    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 17 Jul 2006 04:50:16 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 15 Jul 2006 11:40:38 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 14 Jul 2006 10:52:46 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Sorcerer wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152851486.577046.220050@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > What is the uncertainty of a cosmic muon's velocity when a gamma
| > of 10 and a gamma of 100,000 are calculated?
| > There are lies, damned lies and statistics. You are a master of all
| > three, Phuckwit Duck. Henri Wilson was wrong, you degree isn't in
| > basket weaving, it is in accomplished lying.
| > Androcles.
|
| Calculated?

Yes, calculated.


| Now if you have a 4 mile ring,

Shithead, I said cosmic muons, not ring muons.
I'm not asking about a 4 mile ring, I'm asking about a 62 mile long
dragstrip from the top of the atmosphere to seal level and race between
a cosmic muon and a photon.

Gee, you'll have to inform me of the difference in the physical
properties between cosmic muons and ring muons, and from whence this
difference arises. Unless you want to say what you've said before --
something to the effect of "How the hell do I know what makes them
different? They just ARE different, and that's the boondoggle that
folks should be working hard to figure out, rather than wasting their
time on this relativity crap." Maybe at the same time, they'll figure
out how cosmic muons with a gamma of 5 or 500 can leave the same energy
deposit in a piece of scintillator and yet both be slowed to just under
c by the same piece of scintillator, right?

Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Uh-huh. And does this Wilson reverse field bubble also happen to cosmic
ray muons? If not, why not?

It doesn't exists because they aren't accelerated between two electrodes, ie.
between the plates of a capacitor.

Neither are the muons in a muon ring. Therefore the Wilson reverse
field bubble isn't present for ring muons either, I would guess.

Bullshit!



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:50 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 17 Jul 2006 04:50:16 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Uh-huh. And does this Wilson reverse field bubble also happen to cosmic
ray muons? If not, why not?

It doesn't exists because they aren't accelerated between two electrodes, ie.
between the plates of a capacitor.

Neither are the muons in a muon ring. Therefore the Wilson reverse
field bubble isn't present for ring muons either, I would guess.

Bullshit!


No, really. The muons are not accelerated between two electrodes, i.e.
between the plates of a capacitor. You didn't know that?
http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/index.shtml

No Wilson reverse field bubble.

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:57 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 17 Jul 2006 04:48:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
A wave is a graphical plot of the variation of a variable usually against time.

I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.


my explanation is better.
It says that individual photons exists. They possess intrinsic oscilations in
the form of standing waves that run from end to end.The frequency of a radio
signal is not directly related to this intrinsic frequency although it is
likely that all photons in a generated signal interact so they oscillate in
some kind of common phase.


Well, let's see. You say you don't know what's being plotted in the
case of a photon, and yet you think a photon is a *standing* wave
running from end to end. You haven't said what determines the ends of a
photon by the way. Moreover, a standing wave is created by the
superposition of two traveling waves, combined with physical
constraints (called boundary conditions) at the ends. So please make
sense of your statements above, Henri.

Photons have length and cross-section.

Really? Please tell me how you calculate or how you measure the length
and cross-section of a 15.3 MeV gamma.

Quote:
The influence of a photon extends to infinity in all direction but falls off
very rapidly with distance from the centre.

Really? So if a gamma is emitted from a radioactive source and
intercepted by a photon detector at 1 m from the source and measured to
have energy 4.0 MeV, then if the detector is moved to 2 m and gammas
are intercepted from the same source the energies of those gammas will
drop to 1.0 MeV, following the inverse-square law?

Quote:
In such cases we can only use terms
like 'half length' and 'half radius'.

I don't know how the ends would be defined for the purposes of bouncing a
standing wave but I can imagine a process that would enable that to happen.

Such as?

Quote:

For instance, maybe the speed of the intrinsic wave is inversely proportional
to the radius...so it approaches infinity at the photon 'ends'.

What approaches infinity? The speed or the wave? And what condition
locks the position of the photon ends?

PD
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:27 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 18 Jul 2006 05:57:04 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 04:48:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
A wave is a graphical plot of the variation of a variable usually against time.

I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.


my explanation is better.
It says that individual photons exists. They possess intrinsic oscilations in
the form of standing waves that run from end to end.The frequency of a radio
signal is not directly related to this intrinsic frequency although it is
likely that all photons in a generated signal interact so they oscillate in
some kind of common phase.


Well, let's see. You say you don't know what's being plotted in the
case of a photon, and yet you think a photon is a *standing* wave
running from end to end. You haven't said what determines the ends of a
photon by the way. Moreover, a standing wave is created by the
superposition of two traveling waves, combined with physical
constraints (called boundary conditions) at the ends. So please make
sense of your statements above, Henri.

Photons have length and cross-section.

Really? Please tell me how you calculate or how you measure the length
and cross-section of a 15.3 MeV gamma.

The influence of a photon extends to infinity in all direction but falls off
very rapidly with distance from the centre.

Really? So if a gamma is emitted from a radioactive source and
intercepted by a photon detector at 1 m from the source and measured to
have energy 4.0 MeV, then if the detector is moved to 2 m and gammas
are intercepted from the same source the energies of those gammas will
drop to 1.0 MeV, following the inverse-square law?

In such cases we can only use terms
like 'half length' and 'half radius'.

I don't know how the ends would be defined for the purposes of bouncing a
standing wave but I can imagine a process that would enable that to happen.

Such as?


For instance, maybe the speed of the intrinsic wave is inversely proportional
to the radius...so it approaches infinity at the photon 'ends'.

What approaches infinity? The speed or the wave? And what condition
locks the position of the photon ends?

you obviously know practically nothing about physics so I wont bother with you
any more.

Quote:

PD


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:27 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 18 Jul 2006 05:50:38 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 04:50:16 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Uh-huh. And does this Wilson reverse field bubble also happen to cosmic
ray muons? If not, why not?

It doesn't exists because they aren't accelerated between two electrodes, ie.
between the plates of a capacitor.

Neither are the muons in a muon ring. Therefore the Wilson reverse
field bubble isn't present for ring muons either, I would guess.

Bullshit!


No, really. The muons are not accelerated between two electrodes, i.e.
between the plates of a capacitor. You didn't know that?
http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/index.shtml

No Wilson reverse field bubble.

How do you think they are accelerated? If it is done magnetically, the reverse
field bubble still forms.

Quote:

PD


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:43 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 18 Jul 2006 05:57:04 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 04:48:49 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
A wave is a graphical plot of the variation of a variable usually against time.

I'm asking you what the hell do you think you are plotting in the case of a
photon.


my explanation is better.
It says that individual photons exists. They possess intrinsic oscilations in
the form of standing waves that run from end to end.The frequency of a radio
signal is not directly related to this intrinsic frequency although it is
likely that all photons in a generated signal interact so they oscillate in
some kind of common phase.


Well, let's see. You say you don't know what's being plotted in the
case of a photon, and yet you think a photon is a *standing* wave
running from end to end. You haven't said what determines the ends of a
photon by the way. Moreover, a standing wave is created by the
superposition of two traveling waves, combined with physical
constraints (called boundary conditions) at the ends. So please make
sense of your statements above, Henri.

Photons have length and cross-section.

Really? Please tell me how you calculate or how you measure the length
and cross-section of a 15.3 MeV gamma.

The influence of a photon extends to infinity in all direction but falls off
very rapidly with distance from the centre.

Really? So if a gamma is emitted from a radioactive source and
intercepted by a photon detector at 1 m from the source and measured to
have energy 4.0 MeV, then if the detector is moved to 2 m and gammas
are intercepted from the same source the energies of those gammas will
drop to 1.0 MeV, following the inverse-square law?

In such cases we can only use terms
like 'half length' and 'half radius'.

I don't know how the ends would be defined for the purposes of bouncing a
standing wave but I can imagine a process that would enable that to happen.

Such as?


For instance, maybe the speed of the intrinsic wave is inversely proportional
to the radius...so it approaches infinity at the photon 'ends'.

What approaches infinity? The speed or the wave? And what condition
locks the position of the photon ends?

you obviously know practically nothing about physics so I wont bother with you
any more.



When someone asks Henri a question he cannot answer (which is awfully
easy to do), he sniffs, "You obviously know nothing about physics."

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:51 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 18 Jul 2006 05:50:38 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 04:50:16 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Uh-huh. And does this Wilson reverse field bubble also happen to cosmic
ray muons? If not, why not?

It doesn't exists because they aren't accelerated between two electrodes, ie.
between the plates of a capacitor.

Neither are the muons in a muon ring. Therefore the Wilson reverse
field bubble isn't present for ring muons either, I would guess.

Bullshit!


No, really. The muons are not accelerated between two electrodes, i.e.
between the plates of a capacitor. You didn't know that?
http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/index.shtml

No Wilson reverse field bubble.

How do you think they are accelerated? If it is done magnetically, the reverse
field bubble still forms.




The muons aren't accelerated. Typically protons are accelerated and
smacked into a target, blowing all sorts of smithereens out the back
end of the target. Some of those smithereens proceed unaccelerated down
a decay pipe, ones with inappropriate momenta screened out, and the
remainder decay into muons (and other particles), which are collected
and channeled, unaccelerated, into a ring.

Now, kindly explain how the "Wilson reverse field bubble" forms around
the initial proton, how that bubble persists for all the smithereens
that blow out the back of the target, persists through the decay of the
particle to the final muon, which continues to travel at a *clocked*
speed of less than c for times longer than 2.2 usec during its whole
unaccelerated life.

If you don't know how something works, Henri, just ask.

PD
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:18 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

On 18 Jul 2006 15:51:23 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 05:50:38 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 04:50:16 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Uh-huh. And does this Wilson reverse field bubble also happen to cosmic
ray muons? If not, why not?

It doesn't exists because they aren't accelerated between two electrodes, ie.
between the plates of a capacitor.

Neither are the muons in a muon ring. Therefore the Wilson reverse
field bubble isn't present for ring muons either, I would guess.

Bullshit!


No, really. The muons are not accelerated between two electrodes, i.e.
between the plates of a capacitor. You didn't know that?
http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/index.shtml

No Wilson reverse field bubble.

How do you think they are accelerated? If it is done magnetically, the reverse
field bubble still forms.




The muons aren't accelerated. Typically protons are accelerated and
smacked into a target, blowing all sorts of smithereens out the back
end of the target. Some of those smithereens proceed unaccelerated down
a decay pipe, ones with inappropriate momenta screened out, and the
remainder decay into muons (and other particles), which are collected
and channeled, unaccelerated, into a ring.

This type of experiment is a relativist's dream. It is wide open to any kind of
speculation and manipulation.

Quote:
Now, kindly explain how the "Wilson reverse field bubble" forms around
the initial proton, how that bubble persists for all the smithereens
that blow out the back of the target, persists through the decay of the
particle to the final muon, which continues to travel at a *clocked*
speed of less than c for times longer than 2.2 usec during its whole
unaccelerated life.

Sure.... :)

Quote:
If you don't know how something works, Henri, just ask.

.......ask a relativist? OK

How does all starlight in the universe know where little planet Earth is and
how fast it is moving, Draper...?

Quote:

PD


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:55 pm    Post subject: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did. Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:
Quote:
On 18 Jul 2006 15:51:23 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 18 Jul 2006 05:50:38 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On 17 Jul 2006 04:50:16 -0700, "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:


Ring muons are contained by strong magnetic fields.
They are also surrounded by a 'Wilson reverse field bubble' which prevents them
from ever being accelerated to >c wrt the apparatus.

Uh-huh. And does this Wilson reverse field bubble also happen to cosmic
ray muons? If not, why not?

It doesn't exists because they aren't accelerated between two electrodes, ie.
between the plates of a capacitor.

Neither are the muons in a muon ring. Therefore the Wilson reverse
field bubble isn't present for ring muons either, I would guess.

Bullshit!


No, really. The muons are not accelerated between two electrodes, i.e.
between the plates of a capacitor. You didn't know that?
http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/index.shtml

No Wilson reverse field bubble.

How do you think they are accelerated? If it is done magnetically, the reverse
field bubble still forms.




The muons aren't accelerated. Typically protons are accelerated and
smacked into a target, blowing all sorts of smithereens out the back
end of the target. Some of those smithereens proceed unaccelerated down
a decay pipe, ones with inappropriate momenta screened out, and the
remainder decay into muons (and other particles), which are collected
and channeled, unaccelerated, into a ring.

This type of experiment is a relativist's dream. It is wide open to any kind of
speculation and manipulation.

Except it's not a dream, Henri, it's
real.http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/index.shtml
And it works exactly as designed.

Now some people might say that quantum mechanics is dead wrong, and
that the chips in the computer that they use to write such a statement
happen to work just by *accident* and not because quantum mechanics was
correct in informing how to build the chip. Of course, such people
would be delusional idiots.

Quote:

Now, kindly explain how the "Wilson reverse field bubble" forms around
the initial proton, how that bubble persists for all the smithereens
that blow out the back of the target, persists through the decay of the
particle to the final muon, which continues to travel at a *clocked*
speed of less than c for times longer than 2.2 usec during its whole
unaccelerated life.

Sure.... Smile

OK, I'm waiting.

Quote:

If you don't know how something works, Henri, just ask.

......ask a relativist? OK

How does all starlight in the universe know where little planet Earth is and
how fast it is moving, Draper...?

It doesn't. Earth isn't special in any way. The same thing that is
observed on Earth about starlight is also observed on Mars and on Titan
and on Gliese 876b. Next question.

PD
Back to top
socratus
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 100
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:12 am    Post subject: The Vacuum and SRT. Reply with quote

1) The First law of SRT - the speed of a quantum of light in vacuum has
a maximal magnitude (constant, absolute) of c=1.
2) SRT is not considered a gravitational field.
For this reason, Einstein created General Relativity Theory in 1915.
The field in which there is no gravitation is a vacuum.
3) This asserts that action in SRT occurs with particles in
negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space. This space is absolute.
Mathematicians have constructed its model and speak
of this negative space as completely abstract.
Nobody sees that it has no connection to real existence.
This is similar to a sad joke.
For 100 years everyone has admired SRT.
Millions of articles, reviews and books have been written
and the United Nations has decided to establish 2005 as the centennial year of SRT.
Consider that all that is clear in this theory
is that negative four-dimensional space is abstract and has no real existence.
My God! There does not appear to be anyone to laugh at this joke!
Everyone searches for complex models of four-dimensional space, but truth lies in simplicity. All is very simple.
We meet the negative characteristic of space only in the vacuum, and in the vacuum,
space is merged with time (negative four-dimensional space).
According to the first law, the speed of light is absolute and movement occurs
in the absolute vacuum. So why does everyone speak and write that there is no
absolute movement; that only relative movement v =s/t is real?
Why does everyone say that there is no absolute reference system,
if the absolute speed can be only in absolute space?
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 37 of 37 [553 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 35, 36, 37
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:33 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misl... mluttgens@wanadoo.fr Relativity 64 Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:46 pm
No new posts SI EINSTEIN AVAIT CHOISI C'=C+V Pentcho Valev Relativity 5 Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:07 am
No new posts Caltech and Princeton University Press Release Tenth Volu... baalke@earthlink.net Relativity 1 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:25 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.6539s ][ Queries: 16 (0.2655s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]