 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008How to create a FTL particle motion
Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) The way to do such is kinda simple in thought but of course hard in the reality of the way you need to hold particles. :) First thing you need is a particle that is about 2 times the mass of an electron but two electrons will not do. maybe if a molecule could be used it would be best.. Then you need to get that baby up to as close to light speed as you can. and then of course, you need to smash it into a single electron that is basically at rest when it hits it. The mass being double of the object it is hitting should act like a baseball being hit by a ball that has two times the mass. Too bad particle accelerators can't do that yet with single molecules and single particles.. Or can they? maybe a magnetic molecule? I don't think they can but I could be wrong and someone might "freak out the science world" soon if so. Remember you heard it here first.. and if it works I will of course give credit to the un-named poster. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and if it works I will of course give credit to the un-named poster. > :) Accelerators smash particles moving at close to c into stationary targets all the time. Protons and neutrons have rest masses some 1800 times that of an electron (or positron). No ejecta travelling at greater than c is ever observed. >> Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > that of an electron (or positron). No ejecta > travelling at greater than c is ever observed. Stationary targets, not single electrons. In fact as I have learned it looks like they have never gotten a single electron to do anything yet, and it is always a group of way more that one. Got any reference of single particles only? >>> Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > that one. > Got any reference of single particles only? Targets contain electrons, since atoms do. Plenty of electrons. Their speeds are small compared to that of the projectiles, and in fact, statistically a significant percentage of them will be moving towards the projectiles, actually adding a tiny bit to the collision speed. Doing particle physics one shot at a time would be ludicrous. The particles are so small that the individual probability of making a direct hit is almost vanishingly small. You could wait several lifetimes for a single event to occur. Instead, batches of particles with the same kinetic energy are thrown at a suitable target comprised of many of the desired target particles. Statistically, the odds are good that one or more of the desired collisions will take place, and the detectors sort out the shrapnel. >>>> Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Targets contain electrons, since atoms do. You just confirmed what I thought, No single electron target. The target is bound by "electro/magnetic glue". :) To get the "baseball effect" you need more mass hitting a "free single mass" not a conglomeration of masses that are actually bound together. > Doing particle physics one shot at a time would be > ludicrous. The particles are so small that the > individual probability of making a direct hit is > almost vanishingly small. You could wait several > lifetimes for a single event to occur. You just don't want to let them find out facts about single particles then? :) > Instead, batches of particles with the same kinetic > energy are thrown at a suitable target comprised of > many of the desired target particles. Statistically, > the odds are good that one or more of the desired > collisions will take place, and the detectors sort > out the shrapnel. shotgun pellets shot down a pipe and hitting glued targets. Wow, you are going to find out lots about the single pellets NOT. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>> Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > No single electron target. > The target is bound by "electro/magnetic glue". Hardly a consideration at the energies involved. The energy to remove an electron entirely from an atom is a few electron volts. The incoming projectiles are carrying billions of electron volts of energy. The atoms might as well not be there. > To get the "baseball effect" you need more mass hitting > a "free single mass" not a conglomeration of masses > that are actually bound together. Nah. Hit a piece of concrete with a hammer and see how fast the chips fly. >> Doing particle physics one shot at a time would be >> ludicrous. The particles are so small that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You just don't want to let them find out facts about > single particles then? I didn't make nature the way it is. Trying to hit a specific individual particle with another individual particle is like trying to hit one particular grain of sand several light years away with a BB gun. >> Instead, batches of particles with the same kinetic >> energy are thrown at a suitable target comprised of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Wow, you are going to find out lots about the single pellets > NOT. Do the math on the energies involved before making pronouncements. >>>>>> Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > volts of energy. The atoms might as well not > be there. As I said, it is still a glued baseball wall. The glue will effect the final homerun or not homerun. You can use you math all your want, but until you actually do something in that exact way, the math is not proven at all. >> To get the "baseball effect" you need more mass hitting >> a "free single mass" not a conglomeration of masses >> that are actually bound together. > > Nah. Hit a piece of concrete with a hammer and > see how fast the chips fly. Still not the saem as hitting one chip that is not connected at all. I know it will travel further and faster when I hit the single chip in the same direction I am hitting it in. Don't you believe that part? The target being a "wall" is automatically not gonna let the single particle travel as fast as it could if not "part of a wall". > I didn't make nature the way it is. Trying to hit > a specific individual particle with another individual > particle is like trying to hit one particular grain > of sand several light years away with a BB gun. Correct, but that is the only way you are going to get a single particle to move FTL if anything. Hitting the wall with the hammer will never make parts fly as fast as hitting the parts without the wall. > Do the math on the energies involved before making > pronouncements. Do the experiment AS STATED to "confirm the math, until then you have no proof the math is correct at all. :) So far you want me to say that a wall of "baseballs glued to another wall" is the same thing as hitting a single baseball. with the bat. It is far from it. Think about it.. It is not the same and of course you will not get the same speed or outcome of the particles motion. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>> You just confirmed what I thought, >>> No single electron target. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > actually do something in that exact way, the math is not > proven at all. Very silly. Imposing irrelevant requirements and conditions in order to ignore experimental results is not reasonable. The binding energy holding electrons to atoms is utterly negligible compared to the energy of the incoming projectiles. >>> To get the "baseball effect" you need more mass hitting >>> a "free single mass" not a conglomeration of masses [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the single particle travel as fast as it could if not "part of a > wall". Let's see your estimate of the effect of the atom's electron binding energy on the result. Given that the mass of the projectiles is more than 1800 times the mass of the electron, and that they are carrying billions of times the binding energy, what do you think the effect on the recoil velocity will be? >> I didn't make nature the way it is. Trying to hit >> a specific individual particle with another individual [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Correct, but that is the only way you are going to > get a single particle to move FTL if anything. Why? Can you give a *valid* reason for this condition? > Hitting the wall with the hammer will never make parts > fly as fast as hitting the parts without the wall. Actually, you can get more velocity if the wall holds the fragment rigidly in place... The time of "contact" between the impactor and the fragment is lengthened, transferring more momentum into the fragment by temporarily storing energy in atomic bonds, like electromagnetic elastic bands. When they let go: snap! zing! >> Do the math on the energies involved before making >> pronouncements. > > Do the experiment AS STATED to "confirm the math, > until then you have no proof the math is correct at all. Silly uninformed stipulation. > So far you want me to say that a wall of "baseballs glued > to another wall" is the same thing as hitting a single baseball. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It is not the same and of course you will not get the same > speed or outcome of the particles motion. It would be more like a wall of baseballs floating in space, each held in place by a single slender silk strand, and firing near speed of light 1800-pound cannon shots at it. You decide whether or not the silk strands will make a significant difference. > Very silly. Imposing irrelevant requirements and conditions > in order to ignore experimental results is not reasonable. > The binding energy holding electrons to atoms is utterly > negligible compared to the energy of the incoming projectiles. Irrelevant conditions? You have totally lost now Greg. If an experiment tells you to stand on your head to see the correct results that the experiment is predicting, you are supposed to stand on your head to get such results. Not following an experiment to the letter is of course a failure of doing the actual experiment as stated at all. > Let's see your estimate of the effect of the atom's electron > binding energy on the result. Given that the mass of the > projectiles is more than 1800 times the mass of the electron, > and that they are carrying billions of times the binding > energy, what do you think the effect on the recoil velocity > will be? Estimates are for selling used cars. Experiments use measurements gathered from the experiment as stated. No changes, and predictions are allowed but not the law of the experiment itself. Predict all you want. Without doing the experiment to prove such predictions, they are worth only the paper and scratchings they are made up of. > Why? Can you give a *valid* reason for this condition? The same reason to make the baseball fly faster, you would want it to measure it traveling in the direction you wanted it to be hit towards. >> Hitting the wall with the hammer will never make parts >> fly as fast as hitting the parts without the wall. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > storing energy in atomic bonds, like electromagnetic > elastic bands. When they let go: snap! zing! So you are sayign a wall covered in baseballs with the wall behind them as you hit one of them will show that baseball you hit to be flying faster than if you hit a single baseball off of a tee? That is sad Greg. C,mon.. think about that sillynesss. :) >> Do the experiment AS STATED to "confirm the math, >> until then you have no proof the math is correct at all. > > Silly uninformed stipulation. No, That is scientific experimentation. Otherwise it is justy goofing off and ignoring the experiment as stated and doing your own different experiment completely. > It would be more like a wall of baseballs floating in space, > each held in place by a single slender silk strand, and firing > near speed of light 1800-pound cannon shots at it. You > decide whether or not the silk strands will make a significant > difference. No it would not. The target is not floating, and the wall is holding the intended single target from moving in the direction stated in the experiment. You really should stop this Greg. Or is it you would hate to see FTL actually occur because it would tear down your church with the power and speed of destruction of a nuke? Experiments that are not followed the same as stated are simply not the same experiment at all. Why would you think anything different? That would be very unscientific of you. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Very silly. Imposing irrelevant requirements and conditions >> in order to ignore experimental results is not reasonable. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not following an experiment to the letter is of course a > failure of doing the actual experiment as stated at all. Imposing silly conditions not based upon an analysis of the situation is silly. First you need choose a model of the thing you want to study. Then analyse the model for relevant factors that can influence the results. >> Let's see your estimate of the effect of the atom's electron >> binding energy on the result. Given that the mass of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > predictions, they are worth only the paper and scratchings > they are made up of. You're resorting to magic, not physics. What you're saying is equivalent to saying you need to light the equipment room with black candles, because white candles will spook the daemons. >> Why? Can you give a *valid* reason for this condition? > > The same reason to make the baseball fly faster, > you would want it to measure it traveling in the direction > you wanted it to be hit towards. And I say that the presence of the atomic nuclei and the electromagnetic bonds holding the electrons is utterly negligible. eV versus GeV, no contest. Less effective then a coat of paint in a 10,000 mph head on collision. >>> Hitting the wall with the hammer will never make parts >>> fly as fast as hitting the parts without the wall. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > C,mon.. think about that sillynesss. > :) Think about your own sillyness. Whay are you now changing the condition from a solid concrete mass to baseballs glued to a wall? Different types of bonding involved. >>> Do the experiment AS STATED to "confirm the math, >>> until then you have no proof the math is correct at all. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No, > That is scientific experimentation. No, a scientifically designed experiment would have analyzed the parameters of the experiment ahead of time in order to understand what the relevant variables are. > Otherwise it is justy goofing off and ignoring the > experiment as stated and doing your own different > experiment completely. Not if you can show that the stated conditions are entirely irrelevant. >> It would be more like a wall of baseballs floating in space, >> each held in place by a single slender silk strand, and firing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > single target from moving in the direction stated in the experiment. > You really should stop this Greg. What? Tell me how a thin target sample in an accelerator would differ from the above analogy. Samples like gold foil (with plenty of electrons) can be made as thin as a few atoms. Gold nuclei take up about 1/3000th of the diameter of a gold atom (Rutherford's gold foil experiments), the rest being empty space where the electrons are. That means that the atom's overall volume is about 10^13th times that of the nucleus. In a thin foil, an electron struck by a high speed projectile would fly utterly unimpeded through the virtually empty space of the foil thickness and on to the detectors. > Or is it you would hate to see FTL actually occur because it > would tear down your church with the power and speed of > destruction of a nuke? Hey, new physics would be wonderful. But new physics would still have to agree exactly with all previous experimental evidence. > Experiments that are not followed the same as stated are simply > not the same experiment at all. Nonsense. Paramters shown to be irrelevant are, well, irrelevant. > Why would you think anything different? > That would be very unscientific of you. I can analyze an experimental setup and make informed calculations about the relevance of parameters and their expected influence on outcome. That would be a scientific approach. >>> Very silly. Imposing irrelevant requirements and conditions >>> in order to ignore experimental results is not reasonable. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the model for relevant factors that can influence the > results. So you still don't get how to do an experiment as stated, so you are actually doing the same experiment at all? > You're resorting to magic, not physics. What you're > saying is equivalent to saying you need to light the > equipment room with black candles, because white candles > will spook the daemons. No, That is simply your ignorance of doing the experiment as stated again. > And I say that the presence of the atomic nuclei and > the electromagnetic bonds holding the electrons is > utterly negligible. eV versus GeV, no contest. > Less effective then a coat of paint in a 10,000 mph > head on collision. And you still are not doing the experiment as stated and using your own experiment for results your experiment could not confirm at all about the new experiment imposed. Sad Greg, That is not science at all. That is simply ignorance. > Think about your own sillyness. Whay are you now > changing the condition from a solid concrete mass > to baseballs glued to a wall? Different types of > bonding involved. I am not changing anythign, I am explaining how your (current) experiments differs from mine. Again, IF you use your experiment, you are not doing the new experiment at all. > No, a scientifically designed experiment would have > analyzed the parameters of the experiment ahead of > time in order to understand what the relevant variables > are. If the experiment has never been done as stated, the results of other experiments that are not the same are null until the new experiment is actually executed as stated. > Not if you can show that the stated conditions are > entirely irrelevant. But they are not irrelevant The changes in such experiment are the relavant factors for the new experiment to be done as a new experiment at all. > What? Tell me how a thin target sample in an accelerator > would differ from the above analogy. Samples like gold [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the virtually empty space of the foil thickness and on to > the detectors. Greg, Like I have said. Do the experiment as stated or you are not a scientist at all. do the experiment differently and you are not even doing the same exepriment at all. > Hey, new physics would be wonderful. But new physics > would still have to agree exactly with all previous > experimental evidence. Why? If something proves old things wrong and does so a few times.. It in turn means the old stuff is partially or completely incorrect to begin with. > Nonsense. Paramters shown to be irrelevant are, well, > irrelevant. Changing a setup is not irrelevant, It is what science is all about. I see you gave up on science now. That is again... just sad. > I can analyze an experimental setup and make informed > calculations about the relevance of parameters and > their expected influence on outcome. That would be > a scientific approach. But it would also be the ignorant approach to the new experiment. You choose ignorance and I choose science of experimentation in reality, not on paper alone. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> Very silly. Imposing irrelevant requirements and conditions >>>> in order to ignore experimental results is not reasonable. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > That is simply your ignorance of doing the experiment as stated > again. It is your ignorance of what parameters constitute the important and relevant components of the experiement as opposed to irrelevant factors that would not impact the results. >> And I say that the presence of the atomic nuclei and >> the electromagnetic bonds holding the electrons is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and using your own experiment for results your experiment > could not confirm at all about the new experiment imposed. It is your ignorance of what parameters constitute the important and relevant components of the experiement as opposed to irrelevant factors that would not impact the results. > Sad Greg, > That is not science at all. > That is simply ignorance. It is your ignorance of what parameters constitute the important and relevant components of the experiement as opposed to irrelevant factors that would not impact the results. >> Think about your own sillyness. Whay are you now >> changing the condition from a solid concrete mass [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > IF you use your experiment, you are not doing the new > experiment at all. It's not new. It's very old. The very first particle accelerators did it. >> No, a scientifically designed experiment would have >> analyzed the parameters of the experiment ahead of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are null until the new experiment is actually executed > as stated. So what color must the technician's lab coats be? How about their socks? Does argyle matter? What other irrelevant factors do you want to specify to make it *your* experiment? >> Not if you can show that the stated conditions are >> entirely irrelevant. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for the new experiment to be done as a new experiment > at all. Please then explain precicely the differences in the proposed setups and their expected order of magnitude influence on the results. Show your work. >> What? Tell me how a thin target sample in an accelerator >> would differ from the above analogy. Samples like gold [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Like I have said. > Do the experiment as stated or you are not a scientist at all. That is ridiculous. I've explained that the differences in the proposed setup are entirely irrelevant to the expected results. That's by "scientific" analysis of the situation. What have you done except whine? I think you're just disappointed that your idea is about a hundred years old and has already yielded verified results that do not support your position. > do the experiment differently and you are not even doing the > same exepriment at all. You can support that claim by calculating the supposed effects on the results of the proposed setup and presenting them here. I will be happy to go over them. >> Hey, new physics would be wonderful. But new physics >> would still have to agree exactly with all previous [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It in turn means the old stuff is partially or completely > incorrect to begin with. New physics can't change old experimental results. Observations remain no matter what. The best that can happen is to push experiments into new territories (typically higher energies) where we hope that current physics might break down or new phenomena reveal themselves. >> Nonsense. Paramters shown to be irrelevant are, well, >> irrelevant. > > Changing a setup is not irrelevant, > It is what science is all about. You *must* show that the proposed changes will make an impact on the desired observations. I have a convincing argument that the energies involved in the binding energies for electrons to atoms are utterly insignificant compared to the energies being brought to bear by the projectiles. You have not countered that argument in any way except to wave your hands and moan. Again, I think you're just trying to salvage your position and to hell with common sense. > I see you gave up on science now. > That is again... just sad. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But it would also be the ignorant approach to the > new experiment. Yikes! So, in your world scientific analysis is ignorance, while claiming an unjustified, unspecified effect is scientific and a paragon of critical thinking. That's a most enlightening revelation of your thought processes, James. > You choose ignorance and I choose science of experimentation > in reality, not on paper alone. > It is your ignorance of what parameters constitute > the important and relevant components of the > experiement as opposed to irrelevant factors that > would not impact the results. Greg, If you don't wish to do an experiment as stated, you should just ignore all experiments since you already know everything that can happen in the Entire Universe already. any slight change in an experiment changes the final results. If you do not wish to try the change no matter how slightly different. It is you that is still left without an experimental science at all. > It is your ignorance of what parameters constitute > the important and relevant components of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > experiement as opposed to irrelevant factors that > would not impact the results. You Parrot Complex is showing. :) > It's not new. It's very old. The very first particle > accelerators did it. Show me the one that used a single particle Greg. lying about such is very bad science. > So what color must the technician's lab coats be? > How about their socks? Does argyle matter? What > other irrelevant factors do you want to specify to > make it *your* experiment? It all matters if the experiment could be affected by such. We are not talking about lab coats here either. We are talking about direct changes in the actual experiment itselfs facts. > Please then explain precicely the differences in the > proposed setups and their expected order of magnitude > influence on the results. Show your work. Are you that freakin ignorant? The differences were explained. You simply ignore them and say there are none. yet 1 particle is not more than 1 particle. So you seem to think 1 = more than one. That is again real sad. Non scientific at all. > That is ridiculous. I've explained that the differences in > the proposed setup are entirely irrelevant to the expected [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and has already yielded verified results that do not support > your position. You have given explanations that do not come close to using the thoughts as stated. You have made your own experiment that is not the same to be considered the same. Again, non scientific at all. And again you lie about such beign tried. Not once has single particle as the target been tried. You prove once more you do not even know what experimentation is all about. I can see this conversatuion with you is futile. I will simply have to agree on the disagreement, but of course. you are the one that does not know how to actually do experiments if all you do is write out on a piece of paper and say.. That won't work. :) So Greg, try it just for fun Take your baseballs and glue them together with the same strength of electron/electron bond but scaled up to baseball size. and hit the baseball in the middle with a bowling ball.. Then try the single baseball on a tee instead. Until you find there is a difference. You are not experimenting at all and that means you are not being scientific at all either. And that is just plain old sad ignorance of science. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> It is your ignorance of what parameters constitute >> the important and relevant components of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you already know everything that can happen > in the Entire Universe already. Illogical argument. > any slight change in an experiment changes the > final results. The important thing is, by how much? Some things make essentially no difference. The effect you're looking for is for an object of one unit of mass to be struck by another of 1836 units of mass travelling at nearly c to produce a recoil velocity greater than c. By simple Newtonian physics the recoil velocity would be in the neighborhood of 1800c for nearly head on collisions. You are arguing that the miniscule grasp that an atom has on the electron will reduce that to below 1c. How can you possibly justify that position? > If you do not wish to try the change no matter > how slightly different. > It is you that is still left without an experimental > science at all. Riiiight. >> It is your ignorance of what parameters constitute >> the important and relevant components of the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Show me the one that used a single particle Greg. > lying about such is very bad science. They performed the experiments as I outlined. They were smart enough to realize that the bonds that hold atoms together and their electrons to themselves are utterly inconsequential compared to the energies carried by the projectiles. >> So what color must the technician's lab coats be? >> How about their socks? Does argyle matter? What >> other irrelevant factors do you want to specify to >> make it *your* experiment? > > It all matters if the experiment could be affected by such. Which it can't. > We are not talking about lab coats here either. > We are talking about direct changes in the actual experiment > itselfs facts. Detail the effects of said changes to justify your argument. >> Please then explain precicely the differences in the >> proposed setups and their expected order of magnitude [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The differences were explained. > You simply ignore them and say there are none. I haven't seen your numbers. Show us the numbers. Let's see an analysis of the purported effects. > yet 1 particle is not more than 1 particle. > So you seem to think 1 = more than one. > That is again real sad. > Non scientific at all. You seem to think that one particle will behave differently than many particles doing the same thing in parallel in different locations. You state this without justification. >> That is ridiculous. I've explained that the differences in >> the proposed setup are entirely irrelevant to the expected [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You have given explanations that do not come close > to using the thoughts as stated. Really? Such as? > You have made your own experiment that is not > the same to be considered the same. What does that mean? My proposed setup is identical to yours in every meaningfull way, only simple to execute. You have not in any way justified your claims of there being a meaningfull difference. You're just grasping at straws to maintain your position. > Again, non scientific at all. > And again you lie about such beign tried. > Not once has single particle as the target been tried. > You prove once more you do not even know what > experimentation is all about. You have no clue about what is relevant and what is not. You are arguing that decidedly insignificant details can utterly mask or destroy your proposed effects. It's like arguing that a pebble on the beach can halt a 100 foot tsunami. > I can see this conversatuion with you is futile. > I will simply have to agree on the disagreement, > but of course. you are the one that does not know > how to actually do experiments if all you do > is write out on a piece of paper and say.. > That won't work. The trick is to find practical ways to do an experiment that investigates the sought after effect. Scientists have been doing that for centuries. > So Greg, > try it just for fun [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not being scientific at all either. > And that is just plain old sad ignorance of science. Hey, why should I do your dirty work? I'd like to see your calculations on the scaling factors you propose for the above. Let's see if you have any idea of the magnitudes of the effects you're arguing. >>> It is your ignorance of what parameters constitute >>> the important and relevant components of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Illogical argument. No, It is simply stating you should forget experimental science because you do not want to follow the facts stated for doing the experiment correctly. And you do such because you know everything about experiments because you have all the math needed to never have to experiment at all. >> any slight change in an experiment changes the >> final results. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 1836 units of mass travelling at nearly c to > produce a recoil velocity greater than c. The correct way is having a larger nuclear bonded mass "hit" a single small mass particle. Basically a molecule traveling at as close to c as it can hitting an electron that is "at rest". > By simple Newtonian physics the recoil velocity > would be in the neighborhood of 1800c for nearly > head on collisions. You are arguing that the > miniscule grasp that an atom has on the electron > will reduce that to below 1c. How can you > possibly justify that position? Please show me this experiment you speak of that the target is a single electron thick. I would love to see such data and pictures too of course. :) >> Show me the one that used a single particle Greg. >> lying about such is very bad science. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are utterly inconsequential compared to the energies > carried by the projectiles. Link please. Please show me where they used a single electron thick target and hit it with a molecule at close to c. Until you show such, The experiment has never been done with data collected. >> It all matters if the experiment could be affected by such. > > Which it can't. You truly show your experimental ignorance. any single change will cause a change in effect. If it does not, you actually made no changes or you goofed up measuring to begin with. :) > You seem to think that one particle will behave > differently than many particles doing the same > thing in parallel in different locations. You > state this without justification. Again Greg, Not one time have they sent a load of "molecules" to hit single layer electron targets in parrallel conditions. So, as usual you are ignoring the difference of the proposed experiment. > You have no clue about what is relevant and what is not. > You are arguing that decidedly insignificant details > can utterly mask or destroy your proposed effects. > It's like arguing that a pebble on the beach can halt > a 100 foot tsunami. No it is not. It is stating the pebble on the beach will make a difference and such a difference would be in fact "different". You seem to not be able to grasp "differences" in experiments and you want to call all experiments that are close to the same as the same even though they are different. That is "bad science" and nothing more than such. > The trick is to find practical ways to do an > experiment that investigates the sought after > effect. Scientists have been doing that for > centuries. They have not tried it by stated method. Please post an experiment that did such? One molecule hitting 1 electron. >> So Greg, >> try it just for fun [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > propose for the above. Let's see if you have any idea > of the magnitudes of the effects you're arguing. Because it is called being scientifically curious. I can see you are not. apparently you know everything right and nothing is new to you.? :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> It is your ignorance of what parameters constitute >>>> the important and relevant components of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > about experiments because you have all the math > needed to never have to experiment at all. Wrong. I have the math to be able to estimate the contributory effects of the various parameters of an experiment. I can work out what is likely to be significant and what is utterly negligible. >>> any slight change in an experiment changes the >>> final results. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Basically a molecule traveling at as close > to c as it can hitting an electron that is "at rest". What a magnificently horrible idea. First, molecules are not "nuclear bonded". They are electromagnetically bonded. Secondly, a molecule has so many internal degrees of freedom -- places where energy can go -- that your collision would produce essentially random results. Thirdly, an electron is very, very small, and the proposed collision could only take place in the vicinity of *one* atom in out of the whole molecule. Most of it would just be along for the ride as a potential energy sink. >> By simple Newtonian physics the recoil velocity >> would be in the neighborhood of 1800c for nearly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I would love to see such data and pictures > too of course. A few atoms thick. But atoms are mostly empty space, so anything moving above electron drift speed across its width is almost guaranteed a completely unobstructed path (which is why you want to fire plenty of projectiles to be sure to hit something inb the first place). Gold foils are thin enough to see through. For the early experiments, looks up Rutherford's gold foil experiments. You can do your own leg work for the subsequent stuff. Some science history books might be a good place to get some background. >>> Show me the one that used a single particle Greg. >>> lying about such is very bad science. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Until you show such, > The experiment has never been done with data collected. Well, that's an interesting attitude. Just keep your eyes and ears closed and the real world can't get to you. >>> It all matters if the experiment could be affected by such. >> >> Which it can't. > > You truly show your experimental ignorance. > any single change will cause a change in effect. Like the technician's sock color? > If it does not, you actually made no changes or > you goofed up measuring to begin with. Or what was changed made no difference to the experiment. >> You seem to think that one particle will behave >> differently than many particles doing the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hit single layer electron targets in parrallel > conditions. Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/ C60 Fullerine acceleration: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000RScI...71.1049H Your insistance on specific exerimental setups would be funny if it weren't so sad. Single layer electron targets, indeed. You impose impossible conditions and claim victory. It is childish. > So, as usual you are ignoring the difference > of the proposed experiment. So, as usual you are not justifying your stringent, absurd requirements in any way. You cannot justify your insistence on single particles at a time and no nearby atoms (yet you propose to use whole molecules as the projectiles!). >> You have no clue about what is relevant and what is not. >> You are arguing that decidedly insignificant details [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is stating the pebble on the beach will make a difference > and such a difference would be in fact "different". How different? Will it stop the tsunami from running up the beach? > You seem to not be able to grasp "differences" in experiments > and you want to call all experiments that are close > to the same as the same even though they are different. Plenty of new experimental results can be garnered from old data and old equipment running similar but not identical experiments. Happens all the time. > That is "bad science" and nothing more than such. It is in fact excellent science, making use clever use of available technology to look for predicted effects. If you can calculated the magnitude of the expected results, and the equipment will yield the results above the noise floor, then go for it. >> The trick is to find practical ways to do an >> experiment that investigates the sought after >> effect. Scientists have been doing that for >> centuries. > > They have not tried it by stated method. You have not justified your insistence on your one and only method. Without justification it is just so much specious hot air. > Please post an experiment that did such? > One molecule hitting 1 electron. You're devolving to moronic level. Justify your insistence on this new particlular setup. I've already told you why it would be an unmitigated disaster as an experiment looking for the effect you want. >>> So Greg, >>> try it just for fun [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Because it is called being scientifically curious. Right. So where's your calculations if you're so curious? > I can see you are not. > apparently you know everything right > and nothing is new to you.? Hardly. I try to learn something new every day. Admittedly the scope of my ignorance is infinite. Fortunately the scope of my knowledge is pretty broad, which keeps the feeling of hopelessness over the state of my ignorance at bay. New phenomena are excellent. Being able to do back-of-the-envelope calculations to determine what is and is not practical or what is or is not a signifigant factor is both entertaining and a practical skill to develop. > Wrong. I have the math to be able to estimate the > contributory effects of the various parameters of > an experiment. I can work out what is likely to be > significant and what is utterly negligible. You have math that has never been actually tested and you know it is correct. LOL We can forget this whole thing Greg, It is a waste to butt heads like this. I am not changing my thoughts until the exact experiment is produced and such facts are taken from such. So. Nevermind. Maybe an accelerator operator will have fun with it and actually find something new for all we know. Of course. that would be great. otherwise. It is simply just another thing that will be ignored to actually test all the "math". SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Wrong. I have the math to be able to estimate the >> contributory effects of the various parameters of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You have math that has never been actually tested and you > know it is correct. The math has been tested against countless different experiments with very similar configurations. Why do you think that there would be a heretofore unobserved departure, by a dozen orders of magnitude or so, by your experiment from all the others? > LOL > We can forget this whole thing Greg, > It is a waste to butt heads like this. > I am not changing my thoughts until the exact experiment > is produced and such facts are taken from such. We await the technician's choice of argyle socks versus plaid with great anticipation. > So. > Nevermind. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It is simply just another thing that will be ignored to > actually test all the "math". >>> Wrong. I have the math to be able to estimate the >>> contributory effects of the various parameters of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > unobserved departure, by a dozen orders of magnitude > or so, by your experiment from all the others? Countless "not the same" situations. That is just ignorance of scientific experimentation again at best. Typicle relativist method. It will be almost the same so why bother.. OR , it is almost the same!.. see rubber rulers are correct! LOL :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman [snip crap] > First thing you need is a particle that is about 2 times the mass > of an electron but two electrons will not do. > maybe if a molecule could be used it would be best.. Hey f.cking stooopid - name a molecule that is twice the mass of an electron. A hydrogen atom masses 0.93879044 GeV and an electron masses 0.000511 GeV. > Then you need to get that baby up to as close to light speed > as you can. Hey f.cking stooopid, Long Island and gold nuclei. > and then of course, you need to smash it into > a single electron that is basically at rest when it hits it. [snip rest of crap] Hey f.cking stooopid - countercurrent accelerators. Spaceshit can't do four-momentum! > The mass being double of the object it is hitting should act > like a baseball being hit by a ball that has two times the mass. f.cking imbecile. "SLAN" A.E. van Vogt, (C)1940. Slingshotting electrons past lightspeed. 1940! Idiot. > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Hey f.cking stooopid - having demonstrated you are baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the nonexistent, do some arithemtic for us. Fill in the following (the first one is mercy humped): (+1)(+1) = +1 (-1)(+1) = ? (+1)(-1) = ? (-1)(-1) = ? Does it burn, stooopid Spaceshit, does it burn? SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > [snip crap] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > electron. A hydrogen atom masses 0.93879044 GeV and an electron > masses 0.000511 GeV. Hey f.cking a.shole, if you had a clue you would know I mean "at least 2 times" the mass. Does that burn you Al? >> Then you need to get that baby up to as close to light speed >> as you can. > > Hey f.cking stooopid, Long Island and gold nuclei. And where is the "single" particle part it hits? >> and then of course, you need to smash it into >> a single electron that is basically at rest when it hits it. > [snip rest of crap] > > Hey f.cking stooopid - countercurrent accelerators. Spaceshit can't > do four-momentum! And All still just babbles away without wanting to try a "new" experiment. LOL >> The mass being double of the object it is hitting should act >> like a baseball being hit by a ball that has two times the mass. > > f.cking imbecile. "SLAN" A.E. van Vogt, (C)1940. Slingshotting > electrons past lightspeed. 1940! Idiot. LOL slingshot using what? LOL <Snipped Al's copy an paste joke he still does not get> LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman Go for it!: c = (+)300,000kps v = 0 c = (-)300,000kps GLB > Go for it!: > > c = (+)300,000kps > v = 0 > c = (-)300,000kps Try again. That above math is missing mass difference factors You missed an important factor. Larger mass traveling at 0.9c hitting smaller mass that is at rest. Try a rest mass of at least 2 times the rest mass particle being hit for the "bat". now post the math. Go for it! :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Go for it!: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Go for it! > :) "That above math..."? What math? GLB >>> Go for it!: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > "That above math..."? What math? oops sorry the sorta equations you posted. They are of course not equal to the experiment at all still. :) On Jul 3, 9:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman It should have already been done. > On Jul 3, 9:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > It should have already been done. It has never been tried as stated and sadly it looks like it can not be tried as stated right now because no single particles can be held like such. (maybe only not yet though). :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> On Jul 3, 9:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > it can not be tried as stated right now because no single particles > can be held like such. (maybe only not yet though). The equivalent experiment is done all the time, nearly continuously for several decades. You just don't want to recognize that fact, and impose ridiculous irrelevant conditions to make "your" version different. Well it's not different in any relevant or meaningful way. Besides, how would you propose to "hold" a sningle particle anyways? Your only viable choice would be to hold it in an electromagnetic field of some sort. That is just what atoms do. >>> On Jul 3, 9:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > conditions to make "your" version different. Well it's > not different in any relevant or meaningful way. No, Not once has a single electron been knocked off of a tee. Hit all the walls you want with the bat greg, You still have never hit the ball off the tee. > Besides, how would you propose to "hold" a sningle particle > anyways? Your only viable choice would be to hold it in > an electromagnetic field of some sort. That is just what > atoms do. That is the problem I stated about it all, It is a tough problem but inovation of humans has never been stopped by simply saying forget it. Except for those that forget it while others don't and such others pass the ones that forgot it. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman :) >>>> On Jul 3, 9:04 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Hit all the walls you want with the bat greg, > You still have never hit the ball off the tee. Nonsense. Can I help it if the tees are the size of atoms? >> Besides, how would you propose to "hold" a sningle particle >> anyways? Your only viable choice would be to hold it in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Except for those that forget it while others don't and > such others pass the ones that forgot it. You see problems where others see opportunities. Atoms conveniently arrange themselves in easily manipulated patterns that provide ideal targets and target holders for accelerator experiments. They hold onto electrons with a tiny, insignificant grasp compared to the energies of the projectiles. For all intents and purposes the electrons are just sitting there suspended before the accelerator beam. Only you won't admit that because your house of cards crumbles if you can't find a point to hold out on to say your experiment is different, despite not being able (or willing) to justify it! > Nonsense. Can I help it if the tees are the size of > atoms? You have not tried a single tee and no other atoms or connections that are bonded so well. You just want to ignore something that might be wonderful. That is really bad science. :) > You see problems where others see opportunities. > Atoms conveniently arrange themselves in easily [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to hold out on to say your experiment is different, > despite not being able (or willing) to justify it! LOL my house of cards? It is you protecting your house of cards by simply never trying the experiment as stated. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 4, 7:04 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Then you need to get that baby up to as close to light speed > as you can. So if I'd understand it straight, you wan't a neutron to hit a neutrino by frontal collizion and observe the speeding neutrino. m*v = M*V 1. v = 10 V = 0 2. v = 8 V = 4 3. v = 7 V = 6 It looks it doesn't work. The V will not get over 10 ever. The problem is the internal elasticity. If the speed of transfer would be sufficiently high, we can have FTL computers, and could play games at resolution 10240x a lot. So far no ground breaking research about materials with an ability to move signals throught patches inside at FTL speeds. > On Jul 4, 7:04 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > V = 6 > It looks it doesn't work. The V will not get over 10 ever. Looks like according to paper and ink, Have you ever done such even once in reality? Nobody else has so please don't say you have so you have no proof of such math at all really. :) > The problem is the internal elasticity. If the speed of transfer > would be sufficiently high, we can have FTL computers, and could play > games at resolution 10240x a lot. So far no ground breaking research > about materials with an ability to move signals throught patches > inside at FTL speeds. If we never try such stuff, we never will have such computers Are you really goign to let math that has never been tested for real limit you? That is not science. That is called giving up science and bowing down to a math god. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 4, 6:02 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 7:04 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Atoms are mostly space. There is no reason that what remains may not all be edge-on to the direction of travel all the time. Just have each atom's energy be in a rotating disc whose axis of precession is the same as the line of flight. John Galaxy Model > On Jul 4, 6:02 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Just have each atom's energy be in a rotating disc whose > axis of precession is the same as the line of flight. Hmm, So basically we would need to get the "orbiting planet" to crash directly instead of the sun doing the crashing and the planet doing the knocking the broken stuff away after the crash. Simple enough in thought. timing of course become very critical when dealing with atomic orbits. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 4, 12:04 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Thanks to an un-named poster (don't want to get him in trouble) > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Proton-electron collisions have been done at HERA, with the proton traveling at close to the speed of light. The proton is almost 2000 times heavier than the electron, and still the electron does not go faster than c, measured. The supposition in the suggestion that has been made to you is apparently that momentum is mass x velocity. That is an incorrect formula for momentum, though that formula can be used as an adequate approximation at low speeds. PD > On Jul 4, 12:04 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > times heavier than the electron, and still the electron does not go > faster than c, measured. Did you read what I posted for the requirements? Here it is in the most simple form possible by me. One single "at rest electron" being hit by one single heavier mass moving as close to lightspeed as possible before collision. Why do you think that has been done at all? Hint: It has not ever been done so stop thinking it has. HERA used way more than one for both masses. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 4, 7:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 4, 12:04 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Hint: It has not ever been done so stop thinking it has. > HERA used way more than one for both masses. No, it did not. It collided with one free electron at a time. Look it up. > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 4, 7:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > No, it did not. It collided with one free electron at a time. Look it > up. I have and could not find any single electron situation. Got a link? Maybe you can find this "blue nosed nynph" you speak about. :) > On Jul 4, 7:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > No, it did not. It collided with one free electron at a time. Look it > up. James has some bizarre idea that the effect he is looking for (greater than c recoil velocities) can only be seen if spurious conditions that he arbitrarily chooses are met. Apparently he believes in magic rather than science, voodoo rather than technology. Anything can happen if you just wear the right color socks. He knows damn well that his argument is lost if he admits that his experiment has a known result, so he dances around the failure by making more and more ludicrous conditions to be met. Now he is apparently arguing that the individual collisions in the HERA accelerator are not individual enough. Next I expect he'll be dictating which days of the week are propitious for a positive result (the others guaranteeing failure), and the required phase of the moon. Oh, and everyone has to stand on their left foot while facing north and blinking three times. <snipped the basic rubber ruler patting on the back routine> > He knows damn well that his argument is lost if he admits > that his experiment has a known result, so he dances > around the failure by making more and more ludicrous > conditions to be met. Now he is apparently arguing that > the individual collisions in the HERA accelerator are > not individual enough. Please post a link that has the facts about the single particle vs single particle collision with one "at rest" has been done. As I stated. Please show me where the expeirment "I proposed" has been done. Until you do, you are just blowing sh.t out your a.s and thinking it smells wonderful and of course passing it around to other relativists also so they can smell the rose smell from your sh.t also. Truly the saddest form of science there could be. Saying stuff has been done that has not. It seems lying the the most important part of relativity now. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > <snipped the basic rubber ruler patting on the back routine> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > vs single particle collision with one "at rest" has been done. > As I stated. See? Now he attributes an electron at rest with some special voodoo powers that will affect the outcome. Apparently no other condition will do! If he knew anything at all about collisions and conservation laws he'd be rooting for the electrons to be travelling as quickly as possible towards the protons -- the collision will add practically all of that momentum to the recoil. When the impactor is much more massive than the impactee, as it is with a proton colliding with an electron, then in a Newtonian collision this effectively adds the impactee's initial speed to the speed of the recoil. So if the proton moving at nearly c can make a stationary electron recoil at nearly 2c (pretending for a moment that Newtonian rules apply), the same proton colliding with an electron moving at nearly c in the opposite direction would cause a recoil of nearly 3c for the electron. >> <snipped the basic rubber ruler patting on the back routine> >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > direction would cause a recoil of nearly 3c for the > electron. So you don't give elastic collisions thoughts in a Newtonian world? Sheesh You need to know how to use a Newtonian world before you can say it is wrong. Tis bad. Maybe you will wake up some day. LOL > So you don't give elastic collisions thoughts in a Newtonian > world? > Sheesh > You need to know how to use a Newtonian world before > you can say it is wrong. Huh? |
Reply to this Message |
 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.