An interview with MacM

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by Quantum Quack, Oct 23, 2004.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I was wanting to take this opportunity to interview our resident relativity protaganist MacM. I would request that the interview be formal and kept between my self and MacM with the reader as witness.
    And if the board is acceptable to the idea and MacM is willing I would like to start by asking MacM, what he considers to be the greatest failing of theoretical physics today?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Relativity.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    QQ, I see Persol respected your request.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I would be pleased to have you interview me but I suspect this will prompt many gate crashers or at least spur several side threads.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    To answer your first question:

    The greatest failure is the inability to entertain and consider anything that does not fit the absolute definitions of Relativity. There are numerous things about Relativity that appear to be as claimed but that have far more rational explanations. So it is not so much a charge against Relativity as it is those that advocate its reaches.

    The most notable of these is the concept of relavistic mass. I know they no longer talk about it but it still exists indirectly by simply referring to momentum and not mass.

    This phenomena is purportedly the basis to account for the increasing energy required to accelerate a particle in a particle accelerator.

    It results in the idea that nothing can exceed the SOL. But it may well be a case of a valid concept being misapplied and misundestood.

    That is indeed relative velocity between a driving source such as the stationary magnetic field and the particle being accelerated results in more and more energy being required to accelerate the particle.

    Considering the recent thread discussing kinetic energy and the fact that it is indeed frame dependant and is a function of v<sup>2</sup> one should not be surprised that it requires more energy to accelerate the particle.

    Further that given a finite propagation velocity for EM waves as being "c" and as being invariant, it appears obvious one could never cause something to achieve a velocity greater than the pushing force.

    Indeed at v = c there would remain no push and no further acceleration possible.

    The error here is to interprete this increasing energy as being an increase in mass or that it in any manner prohibits objects from achieving v = > c where such objects are self-propelled.

    Self-propelled means the driving source is attached to the inertial system and nevers sees relative velocity between itself and the load being propelled - i.e. a rocket.

    There are infact numerous objects observed in the universe which are moving at multiples of "c". Some are acknowledged to be illusions of motion but only a small percentage of them qualify in that regard and we are left with a large number of actual FTL observations left unexplained if v=c were an actual limit.

    This is not to say FTL is real or even possible. I personally believe it is. However, it is to say Relativists refuse to even consider this possibility because of their prior misunderstanding of particle accelerator data as it applies to the predictions of relativity.

    It is not that Relativity is enitrely wrong but that it is being mis-applied and used to broadly.

    That is a function of relying on a mathematical concept without developing the physical causation to support it. Mathematics alone are subject to creations of unrealistic conclusions. Mathematics used to describe physical processes have limitations on their use.

    So the greatest error is to rely on mathematics without practical limitations based on a physical model to explain what the mathematics are describing.

    This causes them to lose the ability to distinguish between "Observation" and "Reality". If it appears so then it becomes so, regardless if to be so is impossible in physical reality.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2004
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Audience quesiton: did you pay attention at all? The increase in energy is different in the newtonian and relativity treatment. do you know which one particle accelerators follow?
     
  8. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    =======================================================

    I hope QQ don't mind too much me jumping in here, but Persol already has.
    Charged particles are simply accelerated in a particle accelerator, usually by
    an electromagnetic wave that is 'pulsed' and the particles are guided by the
    magnetic field around the ring. Kenetic energy is recorded when the particle
    runs into something, either another particle from the opposite direction or
    an instrument itself. Whether the KE is figured by Newtonian physics or
    Relativistic physics is usually no concern to the experiment, they are only
    interested in the KE figure itself, not the calculated velocity of the particles.
    To get velocity figures for a particle, they usually measure the cone angle
    of the cerenkov radiation given off as the speed of the particle exceeds the
    speed of light. Yes, I know relativist say this speed is above the speed of light
    in the atmosphere, but less than the speed of light in a vacuum, a very narrow range. But I bet no matter how steep or shallow the angle, it will
    not correspond to a speed faster than light in a vacuum!
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Don't be impertenant on top of being stupid. The issue of particle accelerator response was just covered in my first response.

    Of course the response is different and therein lies the big question. Why?

    I have given a very logical and pragmatic reason why. Perhaps you should address that rather than making your BS comments and adhereing to the cause as being observer related and not physically understood - which I do and you don't.
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I agree but for the reasons I stated and not because of any observer related cause. But a physical cause.
     
  11. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Ah yes, the cause that is basked up by no matyh, but predicts the same thing as relativity. Hmmm...
     
  12. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    If one were to use the expression

    1/2 m v^2 = E or,
    m = 2E/v^2

    we se riight off the bat that m is proportional to the inverse of he v^2 term, and we know that sa v increases so does the so called" mass. Cionfining the v^2 term to returning a number instead of looking at it as a phyiical operator, v^2 can take the form of anything appropriate such as f(v^2) = f(V + F) where V+F is the linear velocity and F the vibrational velocity that acccounts for the increase in mass. Wave your finger in front of you side to tside as you increase the frequency the mas of he finger spends more and more time in all the possible position between the extremes of the vibration which shiould effectivley increasse the mass.

    If the F vibrates + and -, then by manipulating this frequency, by making the equivalent of a diode and reverse the - pulses only, (an ac ro dc converter) then all F would be in one direction, and V and F would add withiout any loss in energy exchange efficiency at higher velocities. Then as F -> V m would not necessarily get larger, but the energy would increase, much off the SR curve. The mass would not increase but the energy would as f(V + F) = 2E/m, where f(V+ F) = v^2 now considered an operator, physical operator, that is, not merely a mathematical term returning the numerical value for the velocity squared.

    You have mentioned that you have considered the shift from the energy going into velocity increases to mass increases because of the decrease in energey exchange efficiency at higher velocities. I agree and I may have mentioned it in a post or two in the past. I dunno bout that, but I agree with your statement I saw a few days ago in one of your posts. I think I understood you as I just mentioned.

    Hey, everybody this is supposed to be an interview. I move that we let the man ask the questions and let the other man answer the questions. There is time to scalp either later, at our leisure.

    Excuse the bump here MacM and Quantum Quack. So I'm guilty too.
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Some people can think and don't rely on a calculator to get an answer.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Question 2.
    Mack, When and what was the first time you experienced this "blinded physics" as you suggest. When did you notice the first inconsistancies in the teaching of physics and is there anything that stands out that was particulary inconsistant and does it still remain as an inconsistancy? [keeping in mind that this is a public forum]
    edit ; Mack if you could quote the question in you response would make the thread easier to follow.
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    My first recollection of questioning physics was in High School and the formula for Newtonian gravity.

    F = m1m2/r<sup>2</sup>

    It occured to me "What the hell is mass squared?" and "What possible explanation can there be for the affect to be a square function and not a accumulative mass function".

    It immediately seemed to indicate something dynamci rather than a passive inate property of mass itself was at work.

    Newton is still undefined in that it lacks any causal source. GR is even worse.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2004
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Not a problem. At least you were contributing.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Question2:
    Why would you say that you feel uncomfortable with the use of Mass^2 ?
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    This is question #3.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well, that should be easy. Describe for me what is mass squared? It has no meaning in our general comprehension.

    We can surmise what mass might be or define it. We can understand Force or define it. Mass square seems undefineable.

    Apple times Apple equals a square apple. Other than a unique geometry what the hell is a square Apple?
     
  19. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Please define v^2
     
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Velocity times velocity doesn't present the same problem. It is a dynamic process.

    Cars colliding have energy proportional to V<sup>2</sup> but car times car is a square car and is nonsensical.
     
  21. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Energy is not v^2.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    question 4:

    If we take the equation e=mc^2 we also have an issue with this squaring aspect. Yet we also know that this formula functions remarkabaly well. Could it be true that even though we have a formula that functions we remain ignorant of why it functions?
    Is this a fair assessment of the mass^2 issue in your view?
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Don't be obtuse. It is beneath even you.
     

Share This Page