Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / October 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"The Flaw in High Energy Physics"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Alka - 27 Oct 2005 14:22 GMT
"The Flaw in High Energy Physics"

    When it comes to particle physics a question arises. High
Energy experiments have led to a plethora of short-lived high-energy
products.
As an example, a proton and an anti-proton, each having a mass equivalent
energy
of 1 GEV are accelerated to a velocity so close to that of light so that
they
each contain kinetic energy of hundreds of GEV. These particles are then
induced
to collide and, in so doing, produce short lived high-energy products having
observable mass equivalent energies of hundreds of GEV. Where did the energy
they represent come from?

    A:- The energy certainly wasn't in the original particles,
their rest mass indicates that their total energy was about 2 GEV.

    B:- The only source of the excess energy represented by the
collision products is the kinetic energy of the impacting protons. The
observed
total energy after the collision never seems to be reported as exceeding the
input energy. If the excess energy was hidden in the original protons and
did
not come from their kinetic energy, then where did the kinetic energy go?

    C:- Experiment indicates that electrons, and the quarks that
make up protons and neutrons have no solid structure down to the observation
limit of 10^-18 meters, as indeed they cannot have. The more rest mass
energy a
particle has, the smaller it is. If quarks contained smaller particles, the
rest
mass of those smaller particles would be greater than the rest mass of the
quark
and the proton or neutron would be more massive than it is. On the other
hand,
if particles making up the quark were less massive than the quark they would
also be larger and would not fit within the nucleon.

    Rather than accept the fact that these particles contain no
structure, theoreticians have resorted to Superstring Theory that asserts
that
reality consists of curled higher order dimensions having a radius 20 orders
of
magnitude smaller than the nucleon (a nice choice of scale since their
observation is not likely to ever be possible). At this scale level, the
combination of Quantum Theory and General Relativity is asserted to cause
space
to be a frothy foam. Unfortunately physicists would rather accept such a
concept
than accept the idea that there is an error in General Relativity, after all
the
quasi-religious "Faith" must not be challenged. Once the error is admitted
and
the necessary corrections made, the merging of the two theories becomes
obvious.
The need for the activity at 10^-34 meters vanishes and space becomes
smooth.

    Everything really does become much simpler when one follows
the rules of evidence in Science as well it is done in other activities and
recognize that it is necessary to consider the effects of possible changes
in
the size of the units of measurement used by instruments produced by a
change in
reference frame in addition to the results of those measurements. When one
takes
this step an entirely different view of reality results. This view of
reality is
much more straightforward and is capable of being understood by the average
man
since the operation of its mechanisms are clear.

    The disturbing part of the present process is that the next
generation of scientists is having their minds destroyed by being
indoctrinated
into the "True Faith".

    The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

    All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

    Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

    E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com

    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.
PD - 27 Oct 2005 22:30 GMT
> "The Flaw in High Energy Physics"

Occasionally this nonsense is worth responding to.

>      When it comes to particle physics a question arises. High
> Energy experiments have led to a plethora of short-lived high-energy
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> observable mass equivalent energies of hundreds of GEV. Where did the energy
> they represent come from?

It is mistaken to assume that energy must reside *inside objects*.

>      A:- The energy certainly wasn't in the original particles,
> their rest mass indicates that their total energy was about 2 GEV.

Well, this isn't their total energy either individually or
collectively. Nor is their rest mass as a colliding pair equal to 2
GeV. Rest mass is not calculated as the sum of matter or the sum of the
rest masses of the objects in the system.

>      B:- The only source of the excess energy represented by the
> collision products is the kinetic energy of the impacting protons. The
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> did
> not come from their kinetic energy, then where did the kinetic energy go?

The kinetic energy is the source, but note that the kinetic energy of
the system does not reside *inside* the protons.

>      C:- Experiment indicates that electrons, and the quarks that
> make up protons and neutrons have no solid structure down to the observation
> limit of 10^-18 meters, as indeed they cannot have. The more rest mass
> energy a
> particle has, the smaller it is.

This is not obvious at all. A neutrino is not smaller than an electron,
nor vice versa, as far as we know.

> If quarks contained smaller particles, the
> rest
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>      Rather than accept the fact that these particles contain no
> structure, theoreticians have resorted to Superstring Theory

This is not the reason for superstring theory.

> that asserts
> that
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> the
> quasi-religious "Faith" must not be challenged.

Well, one might ask reflectively why the reverse (a smooth space) is a
more desirable foundation.

> Once the error is admitted
> and
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> man
> since the operation of its mechanisms are clear.

The truth is also understandable by the average man, if one is willing
to examine some preconceived notions.

>      The disturbing part of the present process is that the next
> generation of scientists is having their minds destroyed by being
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
> provided.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.