Re: Simple Clock Question.

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_aurigae.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 08/10/04 

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 04:01:19 GMT

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
<h@.>
 wrote
on Mon, 09 Aug 2004 08:33:58 GMT
<80deh0l5cfpptq65bnd2bmtrgnnok6ruq7@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 04:01:14 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
>><h@.>
>> wrote
>>on Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:15:24 GMT
>
>>> It stands to reason that the faster a charge is moving in a field, the less
>>> effect that field will have on the charge.
>>>
>>> You don't get anything for nothing in this world.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www-d0.fnal.gov/~brandta/rapidity_gap/hard_color_singlet.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now...are those protons and antiprotons going FTL?
>>>>>>I'd have to look at detailed specs to be entirely sure
>>>>>>(a cyclotron has the particle going around and around
>>>>>>and around using magnets and such; a FTL particle would
>>>>>>require a higher frequency), but my guess is no.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, particles cannot be accelerated to greater than c by electric or
>>>>> magnetic fields.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the physics establishment could shake off the Einstein curse,
>>>>> maybe someone would find the real mechanism for this.
>>>>
>>>>The real mechanism for what? The reverse field bubble?
>>>>The limitation of photons to speed-of-light?
>>>
>>> Who said photon speed is limited?
>>> It is obviously 'c' relative to its source.
>>> Einstein and Maxwell said so.
>>
>>It is only 'c' relative to its *source*. Relative to its
>>*destination*, it is 'c+v', according to non-SR.
>
> That's right.
>
>>
>>This should be very easy to determine, and not by measuring
>>light intensities -- at least, directly. The simplest
>>method I can think of is computed eclipses, in a manner
>>similar to that used to estimate the speed of light in the
>>first place. (The estimate was off because Jupiter turned
>>out to be farther away than the astronomers in Galileo's time
>>thought.)
>
> Trouble with eclipses is that the star is always moving
> tangentially to the line of sight, in which case the
> velocity of light emitted is very close to 'c'

Depends on the eccentricity. For a circle the vector is always
90 degrees from the center. For an ellipse the vector's angle
varies, although it doesn't vary by all that much.

Of course, in the typical binary-star case the observer (Earth)
is usually way outside of the ellipse.

> in the direction of the observer.
>
> Using planetry orbits has hidden traps anyway because the
> orbital parameters are calculated assuming constant c.

I'm not at all certain why c is that much of a factor, except
for the Lorentz contraction of course. As it is, SR and/or GR
explain Mercury's discrepancies from Newtonian computations
almost perfectly.

> In fact the orbits might be considerably different from what
> they appear to be.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>The limitations of accelerators to speed-of-light?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>>So accelerate the accelerator, then. Place a particle experiment
>>in an equatorial satellite, and a measurement device in another
>>satellite going in the opposite direction. That gives you about
>>16 km/s (5.33 * 10^-5 c) to work with and should be more than
>>enough to show any discrepancies.
>>
>>The main problem of course is that one has to accelerate the particle
>>to .9999467 c, which might take some doing. Another method might
>>be to launch a satellites into Earth orbit (30 km/s), going in
>>the direction opposite that of Earth. That might be slightly
>>easier but still requires a particle going faster than 0.9998 c.
>>(It also requires quite a bit of rocket thrust.)
>
> It's a bit impractical I'm afraid Ghost.

Cite a more practical one, then. This "reverse field bubble"
should have certain properties; I'd like to know what they are.
The odd thing of course is that SR explains particulate behavior
in accelerators fairly well.

>
>>
>>The reverse field bubble should also be readily detectable out
>>in free space, as well.
>
> There is always a magnetic fields surrounding a moving charge.
>
> Presumeably, energy is required to set up and maintain that field.
> In the frame of the moving charge however, there is NO field. This
> is quite a mystery as far as I'm concerned.
>
> I reckon that as the speed approaches the critical value 'c', the
> amount of energy required to accelerate it further increases
> according to 'gamma' but not for the reasons Einstein has provided.
>
> It is all to do with the way the changing magnetic field produces
> a 'back EMF' opposing the applied accelerating field.

The simplest method of eliminating the backEMF is to use
uncharged particles. IINM the simplest method of doing
that is to play atomic ping-ping, although I'd have to look
up the details; a proton is given lots of energy (more than
enough to set up a backfield with energy > 1/2 m c^2).
The proton bangs into a neutron. Proton bounces back at
a relatively slow velocity. Neutron gets the momentum,
but no field; it's uncharged.

What happens, quantitatively speaking?

It gets even more interesting when the neutron bangs into
another proton -- or even an electron. Or perhaps the
proton simply bangs into the electron directly.

And, if there's sufficient energy, two protons colliding
into each other generates all sorts of interesting crap.
If the energy's mostly in the fields, why is all that crap
coming out? Is it particle pair creation? Or something else?
Bear in mind, for example, Rutherford's experiments with
J. J. Thompson's atom model and the modern one; J. J.
Thompson's model did not predict the correct results,
but the Bohr one did. (The Bohr one was similarly upbraided
later by other experiments and/or computations.)

There's also the Fe-57 Mossbauer effect resonance experiments,
which are perfectly explained by SR (or GR, if the experiment
is oriented differently). I do not know if they would be
explained as well by a light-source invariant speed model.

>
>
>>
>>[.sigsnip]
>
>
> Henri Wilson.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> See proof that light speed is source dependent.
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Heres one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)
    ... I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. ... First, the energy that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will require an infinite amount of energy. ... the effective mass of the ship will increase so that giving the ship more energy will not significantly increase the speed up to or greater than the speed of light. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Einsteins energy formula E=mc^2 is WRONG!
    ... I am comparing the Mass energy equivalent of the SUPER sized (sub ... microscopic energy) universe sized photon with the energy NEEDED by a ... enough energy to equal the Mass energy equivalent of a proton at rest. ... Since the OMG particle ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simple Clock Question.
    ... > Henri's point is that the field, like the pitchers arm, cannot accelerate ... The charged particle gains the _same_ amount of energy every ... radiation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Heres one for Bob (hope it makes your head spin)
    ... I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. ... First, the energy that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will require an infinite amount of energy. ... In the case of a self propelled ship, The water you would eject from a H2 O2 engine would be going at a slow speed relative to the ship, just enough to accelerate the ship a little bit more. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Acceleration
    ... It is commonly stated that as a particle is accelerated, ... and energy increase to infinity. ... to accelerate a particle in a direction other than it's accumulated ... It is as if the Universe is set up in such a way as to not only make it ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading