 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2005Re: Time dilation etc.
To all, The observed age of a moving object, since it left the observer at t=0, is equal to: (t)(c)/(v+c), as compared to its actual age t. The observed age of a stationary object, which is a distance S away from the observer, is equal to (t) - (S/c), as compared to its actual age t. Time dilation of any kind does not exist. The kinetic energy of a relativistic particle is equal to: 1/2(m)(v^2) + 1/2(pi^2)(m)(A^2)(F^2) + 4/5(pi^2)(m)(r^2)(f^2) Where: m = the 'rest' mass of the helical wave particle v = the linear velocity component of the helical wave particle A = the amplitude of the helical wave particle F = the frequency of the helical wave particle r = the radius of the helical wave particle and f = the spin frequency of the helical wave particle around its own axis. In the above formula: The first term is equal to the linear kinetic energy of the helical wave particle. The second term is equal to peripheral kinetic energy of the helical wave particle and The third term is equal to the spin kinetic energy of the helical wave particle. In case of the electromagnetic spectrum, the relativistic particles consists of photons. Consequently, the linear velocity component (v), of the helical wave photon in the above formula, is equal to (c). At high frequencies, the bulk of the kinetic energy of a helical wave particle is generated by its spin frequency (the third term of the formula). The mass of a helical wave particle remains constant, regardless of its kinetic energy. In other words, the phenomenon of a 'relativistic mass increase' does not exist. For a more detailed description see the second and first of my 'Selected Papers' titled: 'Frames of Reference' and 'Helical Particle Waves', which you will find at my website: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek Enjoy, Len. ............................................................... Eight second movie of helical waves. http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml DF > To all, > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Enjoy, Len. > ............................................................... > To all, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The kinetic energy of a relativistic particle is equal to: > 1/2(m)(v^2) + 1/2(pi^2)(m)(A^2)(F^2) + 4/5(pi^2)(m)(r^2)(f^2) [snip] That isn't relativistic kinetic energy. Try again. > > To all, > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That isn't relativistic kinetic energy. Try again. ............................................................. To Eric, The trouble with relativists is that, they never allowed for the increase in kinetic energy of a relativistic particle due to its peripheral speed and its spin rate. All they allow for is the kinetic energy of the particle due to its linear speed, i.e. k = 1/2 m v^2 ,which constitutes only the first term of my formula. So they concluded that, since a relativistic particle continues to absorb energy in an accelerator for a negligible increase in its linear speed, that magically its 'relativistic' mass must be increasing. This in spite of the fact that relativists agree with me, that all relativistic particles spin around their own spin axis as they travel along, which contributes to their overall kinetic energy. Of course all relativistic particles also have a frequency, amplitude and wave-length for which the relativists have no explanation, since they will not accept the fact that relativistic particles follow a helical path. Nor do they have an explanation for the fact that a beam of light behaves like a wave (without a medium to travel trough), while at the same time consists of a string of particles called photons. (The unexplained duality of light) The problem seems to be that the helical speed of a helical wave particle can be greater than c, which according to the relativists, is impossible. Finally, they can't grasp the concept that the gyroscopic side-ways force, generated by the gyrating spin axis of the helical wave particle, keeps the helical wave particles from flying off into space. So please Eric, don't keep quoting relativistic jargon to me, because relativists have no idea what they are talking about! Len. ................................................. So please Len, don't keep quoting helical jargon to me, because those who run around in circles have no idea what they are talking about! Dastardly Fiend. >> > To all, >> > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Len. > ................................................. > > > To all, > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > energy in an accelerator for a negligible increase in its linear speed, that > magically its 'relativistic' mass must be increasing. Actually, "relativistic mass" is an outmoded term. Instead, physicists no longer think there is a linear relationship between kinetic energy absorbed and linear speed (squared). > This in spite of the fact that relativists agree with me, that all > relativistic particles spin around their own spin axis as they travel along, > which contributes to their overall kinetic energy. The problem is, the spin seems to stay the same regardless of the amount of energy absorbed. > Of course all relativistic particles also have a frequency, amplitude and > wave-length for which the relativists have no explanation, since they will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > consists of a string of particles called photons. (The unexplained duality > of light) Not sure why you think this needs an explanation. It is simply an artifact of our wanting to pigeonhole something that doesn't want to fit in either hole. > The problem seems to be that the helical speed of a helical wave particle > can be greater than c, which according to the relativists, is impossible. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Len. > ................................................. > > > > To all, > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > no longer think there is a linear relationship between kinetic energy > absorbed and linear speed (squared). ................................................... To Eric, So where does the additional kinetic energy of the particle come from? Len. ..................................................... > > This in spite of the fact that relativists agree with me, that all > > relativistic particles spin around their own spin axis as they travel along, > > which contributes to their overall kinetic energy. > > The problem is, the spin seems to stay the same regardless of the > amount of energy absorbed. .................................................... To Eric, The spin of a relativistic particle increases as it continues to absorb energy in a particle accelerator. It is a measure of its temperature. You are wrong again. Len. .................................................... > > Of course all relativistic particles also have a frequency, amplitude and > > wave-length for which the relativists have no explanation, since they will [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Len. > > ................................................. > > Actually, "relativistic mass" is an outmoded term. Instead, physicists > > no longer think there is a linear relationship between kinetic energy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So where does the additional kinetic energy of the particle come from? > Len. Come from? It comes from the agent that poured energy into it. How do you describe an object's kinetic energy? It is sqrt[(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2] - mc^2. In this expression, the only thing that changes as you pour energy in is p. > > > This in spite of the fact that relativists agree with me, that all > > > relativistic particles spin around their own spin axis as they travel [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > are wrong again. > Len. The temperature of particles in an acceleration is actually quite cold. See "stochastic cooling". The spin of particles is quite easily measurable by their coupling to an applied magnetic field. There is no measurable increase in spin in such magnetic fields. PD > > > To all, > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > to its linear speed, i.e. k = 1/2 m v^2 ,which constitutes only the first > term of my formula. No part of your formula is correct. 1/2mv^2 appears only in the Newtonian limit and as a part of the binomial expansion of the real kinetic energy equation. [snip] > So please Eric, don't keep quoting relativistic jargon to me, because > relativists have no idea what they are talking about! It is nobody's problem but yours that you do not understand relativity. > Len. > ................................................. |
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.