Some problems with light speed barrier.

[Crisp]

I see you still prefer to not address the issues head on. Can you show Dr Allard or Shoem's work is in error. Come-on you are supposedly such a great mathematician it should be a piece of cake to show I was wrong. Since you can't (nor can you ever admit I was right) then it is so much easier to just make crap up isn't it.

Look Mac, I have better things to do with my time than trying to debunk crackpot theories from a 50-year old crank who spend the last 30 years convincing himself that he was right. Besides, you wouldn't be able to go any further than just hearing the words "there is something fishy in line 37 of the proof" -- if you don't understand the maths, I won't even BOTHER to look at it. Some people took the time, pointed out that it has nothing to do with ... anything really, and you don't believe them.

Hey fine by me, if it makes you happy, then I am glad you think that what you are doing means something. Just do as you please, but stop spamming this forum with it.

 

[MacM]

Crisp,

Look Mac, I have better things to do with my time than trying to debunk crackpot theories from a 50-year old crank who spend the last 30 years convincing himself that he was right.

You still seem to ignore the fact that persons more qualified than yourself are in complete disagreement with your assessment. Your assessment is based on absolutely nothing but rhetoric.

Besides, you wouldn't be able to go any further than just hearing the words "there is something fishy in line 37 of the proof" -- if you don't understand the maths, I won't even BOTHER to look at it.

MY math is not at issue here. I have indicated that what I did to come to my conclusions were far from formal or complete but was in sufficient detail to cause others to have a serious look and they happen to disagree with you. It is a physicist and a mathematician that you must debunk not "Cranky Old Mac". That becomes a bit more of a challenge than you are up to I guess. So just throw out the slander and try to skirt the issue rather than deal with it. Sounds really scientific to me.

Some people took the time, pointed out that it has nothing to do with ... anything really, and you don't believe them.

LOL. That is funny. Persons took the time to cast unsupported gobbly-gook and slander based on nothing what-so-ever, just as you are doing. Anyone (and everyone) that has actually taken the time to check out the process comes to the came conclusion I came to. That speaks much more loudly than your unending, unsupported slander.

Hey fine by me, if it makes you happy, then I am glad you think that what you are doing means something. Just do as you please, but stop spamming this forum with it.

The only spamming going on here are you and others that sling arrows at every opportunity. Until you show actual cause to conclude otherwise the UniKEF Integration stands as inverse square and if something regarding gravity merits its mention then it may be mentioned and don't continue to whine until you can show that it is not so.

The fact is I have gone back and looked. I entered this discussion regarding "Relavistic Mass" claims and my comments had nothing to do with UniKEF. YOU were the first to attack me, then PhysMachine was the first to attack and mention UniKEF. So forget blamming me for spamming. You don't want to hear about UniKEF then stop attacking when it is not at issue.

 

[2inquisitive]

“ Originally Posted by 2inquisitive

The Large Hadron Collider is to search for them when it is completed. Particle speeds in particle accelerators are not 'measured', they are calculated using SR."
============================================================= ”
by Paul T:

Assuming that you are correct that the particles speed are calculated, the calculation must give a correct speed or else you would end up unable to control where the particles supposed to collide with other particles.
================================================================

I had seen before that particle velocities were not 'measured' in particle accelerators,
so I wrongly assumed they were calculated. Velocities are not used at all in their
experiments, neither is 'relativistic mass'. Kinetic energy is their method of measurement. A particle is accelerated to increase its kinetic energy and increase
the lifetime of unstable particles. For example, the proposed method to use in the
new Neutrino Factory to get the dense muon beams is (1) collect the muons from
pion decay, (2) cool the beams quickly before they decay (this is done to momentarily
stop the muons motion, since the muons are going in different directions after production, and they stop this motion to keep them together) (3) accelerate the stationary muons in one direction as a 'bunch' in the first step to over 2GeV in a
straight section of the accelerator (the muons begin at about 190 to 205 MeV) to
increase their lifetime quickly (4) the muon beam then will go into the second section
of the accelerator to be accelerated to about 11 GeV and (5) the beam will go into the final acceleration phase where they are accelerated to 50 GeV. The beam will then
be directed out of a port where it will meet the other group of particles comming
from the opposite direction for the experiment. All measurements are of the muon's
kinetic energy. They increase the muon's kinetic energy to extend their life. They
said 50 GeV was their 'full energy' but I am not sure if that just means that is all
they require in terms of energy, or if that is all that it is possible for them to get.

 

[Paul T]

2inquisitive,

I had seen before that particle velocities were not 'measured' in particle accelerators, so I wrongly assumed they were calculated. Velocities are not used at all in their experiments, neither is 'relativistic mass'. Kinetic energy is their method of measurement. A particle is accelerated to increase its kinetic energy and increase the lifetime of unstable particles.

Does this mean that particle kinetic energy can be 'measured' directly? How could this be done?

(2) cool the beams quickly before they decay (this is done to momentarily
stop the muons motion, since the muons are going in different directions after production, and they stop this motion to keep them together)

You said that those mouns have to be stopped before they decay. Does that mean that when they stop they don't decay?

(3) accelerate the stationary muons in one direction as a 'bunch' in the first step to over 2GeV in a straight section of the accelerator (the muons begin at about 190 to 205 MeV) to increase their lifetime quickly

What do you mean by increase their lifetime quickly? Which step do you think would increase muons life; make them stop or make them move fast?

 

[2inquisitive]

2inquisitive,



Does this mean that particle kinetic energy can be 'measured' directly? How could this be done?



You said that those mouns have to be stopped before they decay. Does that mean that when they stop they don't decay?



What do you mean by increase their lifetime quickly? Which step do you think would increase muons life; make them stop or make them move fast?

I don't know if the kinetic energy is 'measured' directly or if it is calculated.
I just saw in their statistics and charts that this was the unit they use. The
charts have columns for different data, including kinetic energy, but none
for velocity or mass.

I said 'cool the beams quickly before they decay', and it was done to stop
their dispersion, to keep them in a 'bunch' and then they were accelerated
as a bunch in one direction. The cooling done first very quickly to stop
the muons from dispersing and, also very quickly, they are accelerated to
increase their kinetic energy to prevent their quick decay.

by Paul T:
"What do you mean by increase their lifetime quickly? Which step do you think would increase muons life; make them stop or make them move fast?"
=======================================================

You are deliberately misqouting me in this post, I distinctly said they were
accelerated to over 2 GeV to increase their lifetime. That is a measurement
of their kinetic energy, of course indicating an increase in velocity. It is not,
however, a measurement of their 'time dilation' or a measurement of their
'relativistic velocity' or their 'relativistic mass.' Kinetic energy is a simple,
classical term and relativity is not used. You can say kinetic energy and
relativistic mass are one and the same thing if you want to. Is that what
you wish to state?

 

[Pete]

If you are in intergalactic space then you must have some record of your initial mass and all acceleration, hence velocity, history.

I disagree.

Why must those records exist?
How far back must they go? Back to the infant Universe?
Are they perfectly precise?
How do you if your initial condition was "stationary" or not?
How do you detect and record gravitational acceleration?

If you are truly out there in deep intergalactic space then by definition you have overcome any relativity constraints

Since when do relativity constraints prevent travel to intergalactic space?
All you need is enough time and energy.

I say, if simultaneity, as a derivation of relativity postulates fall so does relativity theory.

I agree.

Yes you can tell if you are stopped from your acceleration and drive impulse data. Mesage from the other ship can be analyzed for the blue/red condition etc. to determine absolute motion.

If you have perfectly precise and accurate records of your acceleration, then you can determine your velocity relative to your initial state (ignoring effects of gravity).

Which is useless for determining absolute motion, because:

1. Perfectly precise measurements are impossible
2. Records do not exist for all historical acceleration
3. Acceleration due to gravity is not accounted for
4. There is no way to determine an absolute velocity for your initial condition

 

[MacM]

Pete,

4 - There is no way to determine an absolute velocity for your initial condition

I do question this comment. Absolute motion relative to the CMB can and has been measured.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-DT.html

 

[James R]

Velocity relative to the CMB is still a relative velocity, not an absolute one.

 

[MacM]

James R.,

Velocity relative to the CMB is still a relative velocity, not an absolute one.

Of course. All motion is only relative to something but in this case it is relative to the universe itself. Now to suggest that the universe is in motion is not only unwarranted but is in reference to what???

 

[Quantum Quack]

the universes movement can only be self referred, I would think.

 

[Paul T]

2inquisitive,

I don't know if the kinetic energy is 'measured' directly or if it is calculated. I just saw in their statistics and charts that this was the unit they use. The charts have columns for different data, including kinetic energy, but none for velocity or mass.

I have never designed or operated a particle accelerator, but I believe particle kinetic energy is a derived parameter (not raw data). The fact that particle velocity and mass are not ussually reported doesn't mean that such information are not obtained or crucial. Think about how to bend the path of particles motion that is by applying magnetic field, so that Lorentz force (F = qvB) acts on the (charged) particle.

For non-relativistic case, F = mv²/r, where r is curvature of the bend. Equoting both equation gives us:

r = mv/qB

So, you need to know the particle velocity and mass (or momentum) in order to determine r. We can't get particle momentum without knowing its velocity and mass, unless the particle hit an object and transferring all its momentum to the object (like in ballistic test). Since here you don't want to disturb (or catch) the particle that you want to change its path of motion, you need to know its mass and velocity, otherwise you can't direct the particle to the path you want.

A simple example for this is Lawrence's classic particle accelerator design, consisting of two D shaped chambers placed on uniform magnetic field. The machine operates at certain frequency:

f = v/2<font face=symbol>p</font>r = qB/2<font face=symbol>p</font>m

Knowing f and r enable us to determine particle velocity at any r (v = 2<font face=symbol>p</font>rf). This method falls apart when particle velocity close to c. Relativity effect have to be taken into account for such condition. In modern particle accelerator, like at Fermilab, both f and B are made to increase as the particle velocity increase.

As you can see, we don't need relativity theory to determine particle velocity. The reverse is indeed true; if you have no idea what the particle velocity is, you can't apply relativity theory.

 

[Pete]

Absolute motion relative to the CMB can and has been measured.

Yes, motion relative to CMB can be determined. However, this is not a preferred reference frame (as far as I know) - the only way to tell if you are stationary relative to the CMB is to observe the CMB (just like every other frame).

 

[MacM]

Pete,

Yes, motion relative to CMB can be determined. However, this is not a preferred reference frame (as far as I know) - the only way to tell if you are stationary relative to the CMB is to observe the CMB (just like every other frame).

Your answer is not technically invalid but it is a stretch . The CMB is basically the original ball of wax and although it is not currently considered a special reference frame it should be.

 

[James R]

The CMB consists of photons, none of which is at rest.

 

[Crisp]

The CMB consists of photons, none of which is at rest.

This has already been extensively discussed in other threads. MacM is simply too ignorant to accept the answer he was given there and here gives another shot at getting the answer he would like to hear, i.e. that CMB can be considered to be an absolute frame of reference and that relativity is flawed.

 

[MacM]

Crisp,

This has already been extensively discussed in other threads. MacM is simply too ignorant to accept the answer he was given there and here gives another shot at getting the answer he would like to hear, i.e. that CMB can be considered to be an absolute frame of reference and that relativity is flawed.

LOL. Your attacks on me doesn't alter the facts and issues. Your inability to think for yourself and understand the value of alternative thinking is your burden not mine.

"To ignorant to understand might be (although it isn't) a legitimate comment"

"MacM is simply too ignorant to accept the answer he was given",

is in of itself an obvious "IGNORANT" statement. It imposes undue rightousness to existing theory in such a way that no other thought process other than those currently in vouge can be considered because if they don't encompass the same conclusions they are ignorant. HeHeHe. I can see a lot of progress coming from such free thought. :bugeye:

 

[MacM]

James R.,

The CMB consists of photons, none of which is at rest.

I really think we all understand that.

What is difficult to understand is how you fail to see the value of making reference to the CMB, inertial or not.

It is a common denominator to all relative motion.

It is also interesting that we can measure motion "Relative" to the speed of light (photons) which are purported to be invariant.

 

[James R]

MacM:

What is difficult to understand is how you fail to see the value of making reference to the CMB, inertial or not.

It is a common denominator to all relative motion.

You can make reference to anything you like. You can use the banana sitting on my desk as the "common denominator to all relative motion". The banana is no worse than the CMB. In fact, for some purposes it provides a more useful frame of reference.

It is also interesting that we can measure motion "Relative" to the speed of light (photons) which are purported to be invariant.

When we say the Earth has a particular motion relative to the CMB, we are not referring to its motion relative to individual photons. Once again, it seems you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[MacM]

James R.,

You can make reference to anything you like. You can use the banana sitting on my desk as the "common denominator to all relative motion". The banana is no worse than the CMB. In fact, for some purposes it provides a more useful frame of reference.

I see you really don't have a good answer. You really don't see the value of being able to reference all motion to a common enity.

“ It is also interesting that we can measure motion "Relative" to the speed of light (photons) which are purported to be invariant. ”

When we say the Earth has a particular motion relative to the CMB, we are not referring to its motion relative to individual photons.

I see you still have a reading comphrension problem. Show me where I said reference a single photon. The CMB is photons just as I stated.

You also didn't respond to the issue of being able to reference velocity to a sea of "invariant" velocity photons.

Once again, it seems you don't understand what you're talking about.

I really don't think this comment is appropriate and contributes nothing to the solution.

 

[Pete]

What is difficult to understand is how you fail to see the value of making reference to the CMB, inertial or not.

Certainly it's of value... just not necessarily of geater value than any other frame.

It is a common denominator to all relative motion.

Anything is a common denominator to all relative motion.

For broad purposes, the CMB is particularly convenient since it is accessible from anywhere. For other purposes, it's much more convenient to use the Sun, the Earth, or anything els at all.

It is also interesting that we can measure motion "Relative" to the speed of light (photons) which are purported to be invariant.

We can't measure motion relative to the component photons of the CMBR. Well, you can, but you always get an answer of zero velocity.

We can measure motion relative to the source of the CMBR, by observing the red/blue shift of the spectrum in different directions.

CMBR dipole: