Re: Testing the SR Concept of Mutual Time Dilation

On Jul 12, 9:09 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1184221608.625688.324060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:





On Jul 11, 7:20 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

Actually, the electrons in the beam of electrons from an electron
gun can be weighed. Or, to be more precise, the m/e (mass to charge
ratio) can be determined, and has been determined to rather high
accuracy by running the beam through magnetic and electric fields.
This can be done with different amounts of energy on the electron
beam.

Once you have m/e, all you need is e and you can compute m.

This was done over 100 years
ago.
http://www.davidparker.com/janine/electron.html

See?
NoSee
To be even more precise, the calculation makes
some *assumptions*

Yes. ALL Calculations make some assumptions. When you step on the
bathroom scale, you are making many assumptions. So what?

When I step on a bathroom scale,
the assumption that the measured interaction is
with the *entire* planet is rather safe assumption.
because an *entire* moon has 1/6 the pull on
the same bathroom scale.

Only if the scale is transported to the moon. At the current distance, the
moon's pull is considerably less.



that the electron would
deflect in some manner similar to a neutral
particle.

No. We do assume that placing a charge on a 1 gm weight will not effect
the mass of the weight 'significantly',

That assumption is necessary to claim a measurement
of gravitaional interaction.

Yep.

You just discredited
the 100 year old experiment for the purpose you
offered it.

Nope. Surplus or deficit of electrons on a 1 gm mass is much less effect,
per centa total weight than the weight[mass of] a beam that is [almost]
pure electrons.



but we do NOT assume that electrons are
deflected like neutral particles by magnetic and electric fields.

So we shouln't treat the mass value quite the same
way we treat the inertial or gravitational mass of
a bullet.

of course not.

You are making my argurment. Not
a contrary argument.

Perhaps we are saying the same things in different words. With the way you
wrap your keyboard around phrases and reference, it is often difficult to
find out what your viewpoint is.

Yes that usually seems to be the case. I think you
are using the Newtoninan light model, assuming
that inertia carries light on it way so I expect you
hold the same view for electrons.

To discuss a system that explains gravity and inertia
we can't comprise it with the inertia it makes so I
can understand why you find my expression a bit
inverted.






A neutral particle beam would not be deflected by an electric field, as
far as I know.

A neutral particle beam would not be deflected by a magnetic field, as
far as I know, [though it might be effected by such a field [spin
resonance frequency for example], under some circumstances, such an
effect should NOT result in deflection of a beam of neutral particles.]

Since you have never measured the weight of a
bottle of electrons

If the figures for the rest mass of the electron are very wrong, [like
if it were a massless particle], many of the calculations done every
day would be wrong. I am not even sure that life, as we know it, could
exist.

If you mean the rest-mass in contrast to relativisic-mass
then the term is invariant-mass. No..

So you are saying that a change in rest mass of the electron would have no
effect on physics in the universe?

I never said anything about the rest mass of an electron.
Unless the cells in your body have particle accelerators
I don't think you need to worry about it as a life threatning
matter. (pun intended)


"many calculations"
are not done with relativistic mass and hopefully no electrons
that are supporting your life, need to move at a significant
fraction of the speed of light.

They all are, from the iFoR of the 'Oh My God' particle [and many others of
similar ilk].

Faith-based science? :-/


If you have secret knowledge of the 'true mass' of the electron, or
lack thereof, please present it.

0.511/c^2 MeV seems an acceptable value
...but will it be 1/6 that value if measured
on the moon ?

It better be. Of course, someone riding along with the 'Oh My God' particle
would measure something very different.

You haven't made the case that someone
holding it their hand can measure it so the point is
moot.




and I have never seen Elmer
Fudd make anode connections to Bugs Bunny
we both have reason to question the assumptions.

Assumptions should always be questioned. I question yours.

Ya think Elmer needs to charge the bunny to shoot it?

I have heard that in some countries the relatives of the executed person
get charged for the bullets used. It would seem difficult to charge the
bunny, however, for bullets used to shoot him. Like what would happen if he
gives a bad check?

I always know I've made my point when you deflect
(pun intended) with a joke. :-)


Maybe he does that by combing the bunny's hair and
that scene always ends up on the cutting room floor. :o)

The Barbar of Ella? Sounds like a role for Jane Fonda.

Do you have any evidence of deflection of neutral particle beams by
magnetic or electric fields?

If I did I would be on your side of the argument because
most neutron experiments attest to the difficulty.
The Einstein-Mach view of induction would
consider a falling bullet a magnet-like or London-like
force so I will offer that as an example.

Well, those are too macro to be much use. The vending machines use magnets
to calm hysterical coins to avoid getting slugged but don't really deflect
beams of coins or arguments thereby.

You are deflecting again. :o)




<< A side-effect of this experiment is its sensitivity
for gravity-like forces at length scales below 10 m.
In light of recent theoretical developments in higher
dimensional field theory [2,3], gauge fields can
mediate forces that are 106 to 1012 times
stronger than gravity at submillimeter distances. >>
[Institut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble, neutrons]
http://www.ill.fr/AR-02/site/areport/fb_76.htm

Sue...

Should that be 10^6 to 10^12 or 106 to 1012?

You cheated and clicked the link dintcha ?

Sue...


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Testing the SR Concept of Mutual Time Dilation
    ... Or, to be more precise, the m/e (mass to charge ... We do assume that placing a charge on a 1 gm weight will not effect ... Surplus or deficit of electrons on a 1 gm mass is much less effect, ... A neutral particle beam would not be deflected by a magnetic field, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Measuring mass experimentally
    ... What we know is that the invariant mass of the decaying particle is the ... decay -- then we've found the mass of the particle. ... electrons, neutrinos and photons, so how do we measure the mass of ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Measuring mass experimentally
    ... What we know is that the invariant mass of the decaying particle is the ... decay -- then we've found the mass of the particle. ... electrons, neutrinos and photons, so how do we measure the mass of ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Measuring mass experimentally
    ... What we know is that the invariant mass of the decaying particle is the ... decay -- then we've found the mass of the particle. ... electrons, neutrinos and photons, so how do we measure the mass of ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: plate tectonics is based on what assumptions?
    ... with a claim that the laws of physics with respect to conservation of mass ... protons and the charge separation effect excludes electrons... ... the suggestion of the existence of Isaacium rings in the cores of stars ... occurs in the core of a planet then either the planet will rapidly grow or ...
    (sci.geo.geology)