Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum The law of conservation and transformation energy

socratus

modern speculations , good one

its like they want to have a dream world where everything is possible , as long as they can convince themselves that its possible.

or it's like their trying to convince themselves that their dream is possible.

then when reality peeks through they quickly run and hide
and they gather together and invent another dream to use
to convince themselves that the bit of reality that they were seeing peeking through their dream wasnt really seen.

ie...

what is shown on the photographic image of the atom couldnt
be seen because we have already determined back in 1922 that
its not possible and this occurrence disagrees with modern physics so we don't actually see it every time we look at it and see it , we can probably develop a probability that can prove to us that its some other part of the universe peeking through the space time continuum dream that we developed to cover up some other realization that occured in the past...

hmmmm , lets find a way to fix that camera so that it cannot
show reality the way it does , because reality seems to be interfering with our belief system.


its like stacking up cow patties , eventually the whole crock
of cow patties will come crashing down.

Yeah well at least we don't need ridiculous child molesters to tell us how to think and what to make of things ... ROFL.

And now my we are definitely done before you start crying that everyone is picking on your GOD and religion again.

I would suggest you take my warning seriously because I will take no prisoners if you insist on going back to trolling.

If you think my response is harsh go back and re-read what you have written which is nothing more than a long insult at science and scientists and therfore your GOD is fair game.

Lets end this discussion because there is no common ground any of us can find for civil discussion your views are offensive to my belief in science and they should not be in a science forum and my views are offensive to your belief in religion and they should also not be in a science forum.

If you wish to continue open a thread up in NQS and I will be happy to engage in a lively debate.

A quick glance over the notes I have been keeping for a few years reveals instances where I have suggested that science is inclined to invent things to explain the unexplainable. However, as long as everyone realises that these inventions are only ideas, until experiments prove (OK, I know you can’t really prove anything) or disprove them, this seems to be a reasonable form of progress.



You surprise me, Paul. Even without QM, this doesn’t work. Time dilation???

How an electron ( slower than c ) emits photon at c?
=.

I suppose the pictured moving clock consist of atoms , some of
which have an electron that is traveling in the direction
of clock motion

therefore , logic dictates that

clock speed .87c + electron speed .9c = >c


sorry , time dilation only slows time as measured by two observers , not electrons ...LOL

if the observer is outside the spaceship

and he can see the surface spin of the electron as the spacship passes in front of him.

and he takes a measurement of the surface speed of the electron as the electron is traveling in the direction of spaceship motion.

the speed of the surface of the electron would be that
of the speed of the atom + the speed of the orbit of the electron + the speed of the surface of the electron as it spins.

.9c + .9c + electron surface speed = >c

next

if the observer is inside the spaceship

and he takes a measurement of the surface speed of the electron as the electron is traveling in the direction of spaceship motion.

the speed of the surface of the electron would be that
of the speed of the atom
( .9c he looks at the spaceships speedometer)+ the speed of the orbit of the electron + the speed of the surface of the electron as it spins.

.9c + .9c + electron surface speed = >c

PS

I'm ignoring orac , hes getting upset again.

its nice to know that there are people in physics that
use logic along with physics such as socratus in the discussion.



thats just it , the dream has stop sign's in it.
take the stop sign's and speed limits down and then you can progress.

setting or determining speeds is fine , but setting speed limits is wrong as described above.

setting limits is wrong.

speed limits should only be set after ( PROPER ) verification has been performed , however you will never find any real speed limits.

this is pretty clear...

if you believe that ( NOTHING ) can travel faster than the speed of light , then nothing , not even an atom could move at all according to your belief system.

because electrons travel at or near ( in the vicinity <=> ) the speed of light.

not counting the surface speed of the electron.

every time I type on this keyboard part's of me and the keyboard are moving faster than the speed of light!!!

then there's the speed of the spin of the earth
the speed of the earth as it orbits the sun
the speed of the solar systems orbit in the galaxy
the speed that the galaxy is moving inside this universe
the speed that this universe is moving inside the cosmos.

There you go again Paul. Completely ignoring the facts of life that have been conclusively demonstrated to be true. All you have to do is to read the quote that you included and then just use a little imagination to transfer the facts into the frame of reference of the atoms/ electrons and you will find that there is absolutely no problem with electron motion and spin.

Also of course when we talk about electron spin we aren't really talking about a physical spin as if we were spinning a ball. Electron spin is a quantum effect and there is no clear comparison between that and a spinning ball. It is much harder to spin a wave function than it is to spin a ball.

But then you don't seem to be able to see beyond your own mind set and figure out what reality is all about.

Bill Gill

Paul, this looks like a clever way round the relative speed limit of c, but is it?

Suppose you had access to an enormously long space craft that was capable of travelling at ninety percent of the speed of light. Inside this, you have a small craft which is capable of twenty percent of light speed. According to your example, all you need to do is fly both of these craft, one within the other, and you will be exceeding the speed of light relative to the Earth.

It seems logical, remember that although the speed we are using for the big craft is its speed relative to the Earth, the speed of the small craft is its speed relative to the big craft.

If I am on a train travelling at sixty miles per hour, and I run, in the same direction at ten miles per hour, then my speed relative to the track must be seventy miles per hour. So why would the same reasoning not work for space craft?

The truth is that the same reasoning does work for both; it is the earthbound example that is wrong, but because the speeds involved are so small in comparison to the speed of light, the straightforward addition is so close it makes no real difference. However, when we are dealing with speeds that are appreciable fractions of the speed of light, the difference becomes significant and we have to use the relativistic velocity addition formula.

The formula is expressed as: v prime = (v1 +v2) over 1+(v1.v2).

V prime is the speed of the small craft relative to the Earth.
V1 is the speed of the big craft relative to the Earth. (90%c)
V2 is the speed of the small craft relative to the big craft. (20%c)

Do the maths and I think you will find that v prime does not exceed c.

Why would the speed of the electron influence the speed of the photon?

If I am holding a flashlight that is stationary relative to the Earth, it emits photons at c.

I must have missed something! Who let child molesters into the discussion?

I'm sorry bill s but the atom example is what I used , I'll stick to that.

and I was using the point of the observer , not the earth.

besides the earth would be orbiting the sun and its distance would be constantly changing.



that formula would not be the correct formula would it?

lets try it out with an aircraft and a missile...


The formula is expressed as:
v prime = (v1 +v2) over 1+(v1.v2).

V prime is the speed of the missile relative to the Earth.
V1 is the speed of the aircraft relative to the Earth. (300kph)
V2 is the speed of the missile relative to the aircraft(300kph)


V prime = (300kph + 300kph) / (1 + (300 kph x 300 kph)) = 0.00666659259341562871523649737225 kph

so the speed of the missile is only
0.00666659259341562871523649737225 kph relative to the earth.
but the aircraft is traveling at 300 kph relative to the earth , is that how you intended it to work out for you?

as soon as the missile is launched from the aircraft it
starts going behind the aircraft at a really slow speed...LOL

is that the way scientist do things?

or is that just the way you do things when your stumped by someone on a science discussion forum?

next



I can say your right on that one bill s , LOL
but only if I use that formula.

let me try one

V Still = the speed of the missile relative to the missile.

V Still = (1 + (300kph + 300kph)) minus (1 + (300kph + 300kph)) = 0 kph

would that work better , at least that way we can show that the missile never even moves , relative to the missile that is.

Paul, you left out c^2. That always has to be included in equations involving special relativity. Wikipedia -Special relativity has an article on the subject. You can skip down to the Composition of Velocities section to find the correct formula for calculating relative velocities.

Bill Gill

Paul,

I see Bill S answered you but since I already looked,

try: v prime = (v1 + v2) over 1+(v1 x v2)/c^2.

No Bill S. This is EVA. (Einstein Velocity Addition)... Not time dilation. (Length contraction perhaps)

.9C + .9C = 0.994475138121547C

(Like Bill & Pokey said.)

I think that Paul is using Galilean Velocity Addition.

BTW... who is this Pokey anyway? 14 posts in 5 years. You found the right formula rather quickly.

Pleased to meet you.

hey Kirby

its been awhile.



I havent took the time to do the formula , but from the
looks of it , its not the right formula anyway.

there are 3 velocities.

so which formula would you use?

and would you happen to have another one of those calculators?

I'm just curious how much would 1c + 1.1c = .99999999999c perhaps?

of course you guys do realize that using that formula you will never get a correct answer dont you?

its designed to never allow any number to be greater than the speed of light.

as long as you use 2 numbers lower than the speed of light the answer will never be higher than the speed of light.

its a scam formula though up by scam artist.

also , Im not the type of guy that believes in special relativity
because it requires special people that somehow can believe in that type of stuff.

but what if you use 2 numbers higher than the speed of light?

Come on surely you have heard it is a white collar crime :-)

It was I who left out the c^2. Mea culpa. Can't blame Paul for that one. Although I suppose he should have spotted it.

I believe I was right by not spotting it.

those who spotted it have been taught it or just picked it up.

its part of math that fancies fantasy.

I havent bothered to learn it , nor do I feel a need to , it
would be like learning to do math in a way that only supports
a man and his theories.

not reality.

as bill said all special relativity formulas include the c^2 bit

I think I'll spread it out on excell and see if it applies to all reality not just special relations.

I may build a theory of reality that is based on reality and
non special relations.

“hey Kirby

its been awhile.”

It may seem that way but I have been reading these boards religiously.

“would you happen to have another one of those calculators?”

Sure; why reinvent the wheel?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html#c2

Well gentle readers. Her goes Paul in denial again. This ground has been covered over and over during the years. Paul for some reason cannot or will not see that there is an enormous amount of experimental proof of relativity, both Special and General. So he keeps going around in the same circles, making the same general claims over and over. This note is just to let you know that when Paul makes a claim it should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Bill Gill