sci.physics.relativity Google Group

Did Scientists Create Artificial Life?

2009-11-27T11:10:37Z

See message at: [link]

Re: A suggestion for the LHC project

2009-11-27T09:14:02Z

This is the level of detail you need to be taken seriously
[link]

Re: Help from relativity pundits

2009-11-27T08:13:21Z

So is he now on the train?
OK
WTF are you on about? Binoculars won't make any difference at all.
Esp as the pulses aren't even going to reach the front or back of the train
.. you explicitly said they weren't directed there
WTF are you asking? Try again in simpler clearer grammatically correct
English sentences. And explain where these observers are.

Re: ETHICS IN THE ERA OF POSTSCIENTISM

2009-11-27T07:58:15Z

[link]
Albert Einstein: "I certainly knew that the principle of the constancy
of the velocity of light is something quite independent of the
relativity postulate; and I considered what would be more probable,
the principle of the constancy of c, as was demanded by Maxwell’s

Re: Help from relativity pundits

2009-11-27T07:35:57Z

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:31:23 -0800 (PST), Khattak <zarm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
What is a "zooming speed"?
w.

Re: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??

2009-11-27T07:33:21Z

[link]
"Boiling the Vacuum with an X-Ray Free Electron Laser"
You will find your answer in equation (1). About 1.3*10^18 volts/meter
electric field strength is needed to produce e+e- pairs spontaneously
from the vacuum. That is quite a bit that is needed. Can 100 million

Help from relativity pundits

2009-11-27T07:31:23Z

If a platform observer change his position in Einstein train
experiment and stand either in front or back of the moving train and
if the flashes of lights are fired from the light source which is at
the middle of train, towards its longitudinal sides (instead of
towards cockpit and tail).
In order to eliminate the speed of train, the observer at the back

Re: What goes up must come down

2009-11-27T07:20:19Z

yes my friend it is true even from leverian perspective: chose some
pair of force and distance (F, D) and shift the phase in range [0,
2pi] to calculate the force distance [F', D'] pair at that phase this
way
F' = F cos(a) - D sin(a) and D' = F sin(a) + D cos(a)
the trajectory in a free fall is not as the british shithead clown

Re: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??

2009-11-27T07:04:26Z

Probably electron-positron pair production due to electrons hitting
ions and other electrons at high speed. The electric field in the
lightening bolt would produse enough acceleration to produce at least
some electron-positron pairs.
It take at least 511 KeV to produce an electron. It takes at

Re: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??

2009-11-27T06:21:58Z

[link]
I don't really know. I know my astrophysics far, far better than particle
physics and the quantum domain.
What I have never seen answered adequately is how much energy you can put
into the vacuum before it starts sparking through pair production. A simple

Re: A suggestion for the LHC project

2009-11-27T06:09:32Z

...none of whom read any of the newsgroups you crossposted into.
The LHC collides Lead nuclei, idiot.
Might? Way to take a stand.
You have no idea what current theories are, much less what they predict.
Which you can ascribe no properties to, other than 'it moves in circles'.
Amazing how your psychotic rambling is indistinguishable from other

Re: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??

2009-11-27T05:34:11Z

I would suspect they are producing antimatter by a different method than
the Schwinger mechanism. AFAIK, no lab has ever yet produced an
electric field intensity high enough for spontaneous pair production
from the "vacuum". A quick search reveals that the electric field
strength of lightning is probably not high enough so positron production

Re: The form of atomic shells for electrons

2009-11-27T05:33:43Z

all of the way around a linear vertical axis and a linear horizontal
axis.
-Josh.

Re: Is physics a science?

2009-11-27T05:33:21Z

This is where you write the imbecility:
"The basic continuity equation of Continuum Mechanics is given as :
d(rho)/dt + (rho)Div v = 0"
instead of the CORRECT equation:
d(rho)/dt + Div (rho*v) = 0
Do you understand the difference, old aetheristic fart?

Re: The form of atomic shells for electrons

2009-11-27T05:24:22Z

NO. But shells are not straight in any way they are round all of the
way.