Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:53:27 -0000

 Jim Greenfield:
>dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:

>> velocity. Relativity requires correcting for the time dilation, so in
>> order to stay on the resonance, either the the rf frequence has to change
>> or the magnetic field has to change as a function of the radius. The
>> expression in terms of the magnetic field would be: B = mw \gamma/q, with
>> \gamma given 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) = 1/sqrt(1 - (wr/c)^2), which requires
>> the magnetic field to increase as a function of the radius.
>
>Cyclotron is a 'dohnut' a few hundred meters in diameter?
 
  No, it isn't. You seem to disagreee with everything before you know
anything about what it is you disagree with. Kooks are so predictable.

>How does
>this radius "change" to allow for the changing radius of the particles
>path?.....
 
  Look it up.
[...]
>> No assumption involved. The energy of a charged particle is fixed
>> by the rf frequency and the radius of curvature by v = wr, so that
>> the energy is simple to determine.
>
>I can sit at the lights, and rev my car engine to the max, but zip
>happens in the way of motion. The (kinetic) energy may not be
>"absorbed by" the particle.
 
  Apparently, you didn't understand anything I wrote. Stop making up dumb
reasons that make no sense to just to disagree. It's obvious you simply
want to ignore real data in favor of your fantasy universe. Why not
take up dowsing?

[...]
>> The resonance for the cern collider is so sharp that back around
>> 1994 CERN was able to measure the shift in the beam energy due to
>> the gravitational pull of the moon which stretched the several
>> kilometers of the beamline by fractions of a millimeter.
>
>That is exactly what I would expect from a stream of particles passing
>a mass
>(gravitational deflection)
 
 You must be as dumb as a post. Gravitational deflection had nothing
to do with anything. You don't appear to know anything about resonant
cavities, either.

>
>When that beam passed the moon, do you think that it continued on a
>straight path? Importantly, was this the ORIGINAL path?
 
  It's not even possible to make sense out that wwith respect to
what I wrote. Where do you come up with this stuff? You seem to
make it up as you go along, hpoing to get lucky and guess the
right words.
 
>(Simple optics would predict that if the beam remained on an altered
>path, then an observer on the other side would measure /observe the
>earth to be in the wrong place)
>How much of distant universe is not where it appears due to this
>deflection?
 
  How much star trek do you watch to get your ideas about science?

Quantcast