Consider a laser that is emitting pulses of light from each end. One would have to conclude that these were separating from each other at a speed of 2c. Now replace one laser beam with a series of electrons traveling at 0.9999c wrt the laser. One would have to conclude that the laser pulses were separating from the electrons at ~2c.
Next, replace the electron beam with two pions beams, one traveling at 0.5c wrt the laser and the other at 0.9999c. Let the pions decay and emit a gamma particle in the direction of the laser.
Question: What is the speed of the gamma particles wrt the laser pulses?
Henri Wilson wrote: > Consider a laser that is emitting pulses of light from each end. > One would have to conclude that these were separating from each other at a > speed of 2c. > Now replace one laser beam with a series of electrons traveling at 0.9999c wrt > the laser.
0.9999c? Why do YOU, of all people, seem to accept the existence of a "speed limit"?
Why not use electrons traveling at 2c with respect to the laser?
Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
OK, how about a 2c neutral pion beam, that mostly decays into gamma ray photons?
On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote: >> Consider a laser that is emitting pulses of light from each end. >> One would have to conclude that these were separating from each other at a >> speed of 2c. >> Now replace one laser beam with a series of electrons traveling at 0.9999c wrt >> the laser.
>0.9999c? Why do YOU, of all people, seem to accept the existence >of a "speed limit"?
There IS a limit to how fast a beam of charged particles can be accelerated by an electric field.
>Why not use electrons traveling at 2c with respect to the laser?
Because some argumentative fool like you would complain that it can't be done.
>>Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
>OK, how about a 2c neutral pion beam, that mostly decays into >gamma ray photons?
Now how about concentrating on the question instead of wasting my valuable time...
> Consider a laser that is emitting pulses of light from each end. > One would have to conclude that these were separating from each other > at a > speed of 2c.
Why?
> Now replace one laser beam with a series of electrons traveling at > 0.9999c wrt > the laser. > One would have to conclude that the laser pulses were separating from > the > electrons at ~2c.
Henri Wilson wrote: > Consider a laser that is emitting pulses of light from each end. > One would have to conclude that these were separating from each other at a > speed of 2c.
Yes.
Why doesn't this violate SR? Because "separation rate" is not the measured velocity of anything, according to anybody.
> Now replace one laser beam with a series of electrons traveling at 0.9999c wrt > the laser. > One would have to conclude that the laser pulses were separating from the > electrons at ~2c.
Also correct.
> Next, replace the electron beam with two pions beams, one traveling at 0.5c wrt > the laser and the other at 0.9999c.
Also correct.
> Let the pions decay and emit a gamma particle in the direction of the laser.
> Question: What is the speed of the gamma particles wrt the laser pulses?
As gammas are photons, the speed is c. According to the lab observer who has been measuring all of this, the separation rate of the gammas from your original laser pulses is either 0 or 2c.
However, "speed wrt" implies the view of some other observer, and an observer riding along with laser pulses is not an allowed point of view in SR.
Up to the point where you used that [deliberately?] ambiguous terminology, everything was from the point of view of a single observer and no transformations were involved since there is only one frame of reference.
There is no answer to the question "What is the speed of ______ [fill in the blank with anything] with respect to laser pulses?" because there is not a legitimate frame of reference for light. It's possible that you knew this and posed the question anyway because you need to publicly demonstrate that you're a jackass. It's also possible that, despite being told many times, you still didn't didn't know it because you are extremely stupid and incapable of learning anything.
> "Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message > news:o9lh229dl3041llvlpq1oulkrmuhvqiilg@4ax.com... > > Consider a laser that is emitting pulses of light from each end. > > One would have to conclude that these were separating from each other > > at a > > speed of 2c.
> Why?
Express c in meter/second.
After 1 second the distance between the signals as seen by you is: d(1) = 2 c seconds. After 2 seconds the distance between the signals as seen by you is: d(2) = 4 c seconds. ... After t seconds the distance between the signals as seen by you is: d(t) = 2 t c seconds.
Define this distance by t seconds and you get a "closing speed between the signals" of d(t) / (t seconds) = 2 c.
> > Now replace one laser beam with a series of electrons traveling at > > 0.9999c wrt > > the laser. > > One would have to conclude that the laser pulses were separating from > > the > > electrons at ~2c.
> Why?
Same as before. Look up "closing speed", or "third party speed", or "speed relative to".
On 28 Mar 2006 05:38:25 -0800, "Paul Cardinale" <pcardin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
>There is no answer to the question "What is the speed of ______ [fill >in the blank with anything] with respect to laser pulses?" because >there is not a legitimate frame of reference for light.
But there can be an FoR for an electron traveling at 0.9999999999999c ?
> It's possible >that you knew this and posed the question anyway because you need to >publicly demonstrate that you're a jackass. It's also possible that, >despite being told many times, you still didn't didn't know it because >you are extremely stupid and incapable of learning anything.
Seto is often wrong but he is definitely right about you.
> >There is no answer to the question "What is the speed of ______ [fill > >in the blank with anything] with respect to laser pulses?" because > >there is not a legitimate frame of reference for light.
> But there can be an FoR for an electron traveling at 0.9999999999999c ?
No, silly, not at 0.9999999999999c. Only at 0.999999c and 0.999999999999999999999c
> > It's possible > >that you knew this and posed the question anyway because you need to > >publicly demonstrate that you're a jackass. It's also possible that, > >despite being told many times, you still didn't didn't know it because > >you are extremely stupid and incapable of learning anything.
> Seto is often wrong but he is definitely right about you.
Yes, we know that Seto comes right after you, and you come right after Androcles. Even Andrpcles would agree with that.
>Henri Wilson wrote: >> Consider a laser that is emitting pulses of light from each end. >> One would have to conclude that these were separating from each other at a >> speed of 2c.
>Yes.
>Why doesn't this violate SR? Because "separation rate" is >not the measured velocity of anything, according to anybody.
>> Now replace one laser beam with a series of electrons traveling at 0.9999c wrt >> the laser. >> One would have to conclude that the laser pulses were separating from the >> electrons at ~2c.
>Also correct.
>> Next, replace the electron beam with two pions beams, one traveling at 0.5c wrt >> the laser and the other at 0.9999c.
>Also correct.
>> Let the pions decay and emit a gamma particle in the direction of the laser.
>> Question: What is the speed of the gamma particles wrt the laser pulses?
>As gammas are photons, the speed is c. According to >the lab observer who has been measuring all of this, >the separation rate of the gammas from your original >laser pulses is either 0 or 2c.
So what does that make the speed of the gammas wrt the pions?
>However, "speed wrt" implies the view of some other >observer, and an observer riding along with laser pulses >is not an allowed point of view in SR.
I don't think you know what you are talking about Randy. SR clearly breaks down when it considers 3rd observers.
>Up to the point where you used that [deliberately?] >ambiguous terminology, everything was from >the point of view of a single observer and no transformations >were involved since there is only one frame of reference.
Everything you say fully supports the BaTh of light. According to 3rd observers, all starlight does NOT travel to Earth at c and variable star brightness curves ARE a direct consequence of light's variable speed through space.
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> Consider a laser that is emitting pulses of light from each end. > >> One would have to conclude that these were separating from each other at a > >> speed of 2c.
> >Yes.
> >Why doesn't this violate SR? Because "separation rate" is > >not the measured velocity of anything, according to anybody.
> >> Now replace one laser beam with a series of electrons traveling at 0.9999c wrt > >> the laser. > >> One would have to conclude that the laser pulses were separating from the > >> electrons at ~2c.
> >Also correct.
> >> Next, replace the electron beam with two pions beams, one traveling at 0.5c wrt > >> the laser and the other at 0.9999c.
> >Also correct.
> >> Let the pions decay and emit a gamma particle in the direction of the laser.
> >> Question: What is the speed of the gamma particles wrt the laser pulses?
> >As gammas are photons, the speed is c. According to > >the lab observer who has been measuring all of this, > >the separation rate of the gammas from your original > >laser pulses is either 0 or 2c.
> So what does that make the speed of the gammas wrt the pions?
> >However, "speed wrt" implies the view of some other > >observer, and an observer riding along with laser pulses > >is not an allowed point of view in SR.
> I don't think you know what you are talking about Randy. > SR clearly breaks down when it considers 3rd observers.
No, Rabbidge, you break down when it comes to understanding the difference between speed and closing speed and. That has been established since at least 5 years now, remember?
Henri Wilson wrote: > Consider a laser that is emitting pulses of light from each end. > One would have to conclude that these were separating from each other at a > speed of 2c.
Yup.
> Now replace one laser beam with a series of electrons traveling at 0.9999c wrt > the laser. > One would have to conclude that the laser pulses were separating from the > electrons at ~2c.
Yep.
> Next, replace the electron beam with two pions beams, one traveling at 0.5c wrt > the laser and the other at 0.9999c. > Let the pions decay and emit a gamma particle in the direction of the laser.
Okay.
> Question: What is the speed of the gamma particles wrt the laser pulses?
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote: > >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde > >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
> Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
Oh yeah, that's what you call it... Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me...
Jerry wrote: > Henri Wilson wrote: > > On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde > > >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
> > Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
> Oh yeah, that's what you call it... > Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back > and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
> Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me...
Which is ironic considering how much he rails against SR for being an "aether theory" [in his own mind, it is] and then in another post will talk about the mysterious reverse field bubble and/or the "h-aether".
| > On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote: | | > >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde | > >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it... | > | > Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'? | | Oh yeah, that's what you call it... | Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back | and keeps the electron from going any faster than c? | | Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me... | | Jerry
Wilson said [quote] Einstein said that if you synch clocks """"IN THE AETHER"""" so that tAB = tBA then you can forget all about that aether and TWLS will always equal OWLS due to clock fiddling. The silly fool was actually right all along but for the wrong reasons. [end quote] Wilson is a troll who will disagree with anyone for the sake of argument.
On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde >> >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
>> Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
>Oh yeah, that's what you call it... >Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back >and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
>Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me...
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde > >> >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
> >> Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
> >Oh yeah, that's what you call it... > >Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back > >and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
> There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
> In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a > reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. > At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
> >Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me...
> Don 't even suggest it. > I am a true relativist.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:44:58 GMT, "Hexenmeister" <vanqu...@broom.Mickey> wrote:
>"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message >news:1143619231.190487.112500@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >| Henri Wilson wrote: >| > On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> >wrote: >| >| > >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde >| > >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it... >| > >| > Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'? >| >| Oh yeah, that's what you call it... >| Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back >| and keeps the electron from going any faster than c? >| >| Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me... >| >| Jerry
>Wilson said >[quote] > Einstein said that if you synch clocks """"IN THE AETHER"""" so that tAB = >tBA > then you can forget all about that aether and TWLS will always equal OWLS >due to clock fiddling. > The silly fool was actually right all along but for the wrong reasons. >[end quote] >Wilson is a troll who will disagree with anyone for the sake of argument.
>Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde >> >> >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
>> >> Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
>> >Oh yeah, that's what you call it... >> >Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back >> >and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
>> There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
>> In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a >> reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. >> At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
>> >Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me...
>> Don 't even suggest it. >> I am a true relativist.
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 29 Mar 2006 18:34:30 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> >> On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde > >> >> >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
> >> >> Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
> >> >Oh yeah, that's what you call it... > >> >Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back > >> >and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
> >> There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
> >> In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a > >> reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. > >> At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
> >> >Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me...
> >> Don 't even suggest it. > >> I am a true relativist.
> >One word: "H-aether".
> Two words: fuck off!
I will rub your theory in your face until you stop shitting it all over these newsgroups.
> On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde > >> >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
> >> Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
> >Oh yeah, that's what you call it... > >Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back > >and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
> There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
> In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a > reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. > At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
> >Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me...
> Don 't even suggest it. > I am a true relativist.
> On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde > >> >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
> >> Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
> >Oh yeah, that's what you call it... > >Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back > >and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
> There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
> In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a > reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. > At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
Oh, no, Henri. This will not do. Have you forgotten your own explanation? Remember that we know that the moving charge gains the same amount of energy every time it passes through the accelerating field, regardless what its speed is. So we know that nothing cancels the accelerating field; it is not balanced by anything. To overcome this, you have previously claimed that the gained energy is carried by your "reverse field bubble", which means that any moving charged particle must be is surrounded by a "reverse field bubble" also when it is not in the accelerating field. Since we also know that the kinetic energy of the - according to you - charged particle with its reverse field bubble approaches infinity when the speed approaches c, it follows that according to Henri Wilson the theoretical speed limit of a charged particle is c.
| >"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote in message
| >news:1143619231.190487.112500@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... | >| Henri Wilson wrote: | >| > On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> | >wrote: | >| | >| > >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde | >| > >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it... | >| > | >| > Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'? | >| | >| Oh yeah, that's what you call it... | >| Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back | >| and keeps the electron from going any faster than c? | >| | >| Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me... | >| | >| Jerry | > | > | >Wilson said | >[quote] | > Einstein said that if you synch clocks """"IN THE AETHER"""" so that tAB = | >tBA | > then you can forget all about that aether and TWLS will always equal OWLS | >due to clock fiddling. | > The silly fool was actually right all along but for the wrong reasons. | >[end quote] | >Wilson is a troll who will disagree with anyone for the sake of argument. | > | >Androcles. | | 29032240 = 1/Androcles IQ | Wilson is a typical relativist troll that resorts to insults when the wabo is cornered by his own stupidity and ignorance.
Jeery thinks he is an aetherialist, I say he a relativist and the relativists and aetherialists reckon he's an emissionist. The arsehole doesn't know which side he's on, but it is in fact the rectum side where the shit is. Androcles 30031221
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 29 Mar 2006 00:00:31 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 27 Mar 2006 23:54:04 -0800, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >Oh, yeah, you postulate the existence of some sort of retrograde > >> >force operating on charged particles, forget what you call it...
> >> Are you refering to Wilson's 'reverse field bubble'?
> >Oh yeah, that's what you call it... > >Tell me, Henri, what does an electron pass through that pushes back > >and keeps the electron from going any faster than c?
> There is no theoretical limit to relative speed.
> In an accelerator that uses an electric field, the moving charge builds up a > reverse field around itself. The faster it goes the bigger the reverse field. > At speed c wrt the plates, the local reverse field balances the applied field.
What happens when the electron exits the accelerator? Where does the reverse field bubble go? I presume that it must stay with the electron, otherwise you have some major conservation of energy violations to contend with.
So, freely moving electrons, even -outside- of an accelerator, must be surrounded by reverse field bubbles.
> >Aether? Are you an aetherist? Sure sounds like it to me...
> Don 't even suggest it. > I am a true relativist.
|
