newts
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by newts
-
-
I would say physics contains 3 distinct elements:1. ‘The laws of physics’, which Newton might have referred to as God’s laws, which never change.2. ‘The current laws of physicists’, which Newton might have described as man’s paltry attempt to explain God’s laws. Which are always partly right and partly wrong, and change from age to age.3. The scientific experimental method, developed by Newton et al, which works very well and therefore need not be changed.It could be said that the Wright brother succeeded because: 1. ‘The laws of physics’ are what they are. 2. They ignored ‘The current laws of physicists’ (though as Swansont says this is somewhat anecdotal). 3. They employed the experimental method (as stated by Arc).When people criticise physics, they are invariably criticising ‘The current laws of physicists’. But physics-believers tend to respond as though this is an attack on their faith as a whole, as illustrated by John Cuthber's and Arc’s defence of the undisputed value of the scientific experimental method. And I think that somewhere in his brain, Swansont is arguing that since planes rely on ‘The laws of physics’, that somehow physics can claim the credit, in the same way Newton might have credited God.The reason physics comes across as a religion, is that physics-believers always seem convinced that ‘The laws of physics’ and ‘The current laws of physicists’ are one and the same, despite the experimental evidence that they never have been in the past. The oath of allegiance is apparently so strong nowadays that nobody in the physics community is even prepared to dismiss the nonsense of time travel.
0 -
In a word, Bullshit. You don't get to make that claim without backing it up with some really good evidence. You need to show that (1) they fraudulently manipulated the data (the implication here is that this is not the kind of manipulation scientists normally do, like subtracting a known offset, or averaging, etc. or that isn't/wasn't normal operating procedure for timekeeping) and (2) that they did so so that they could achieve fame. (How "famous" are they, really?) Do you have access to a diary or something?
http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i5_en/
0 -
He never implied that computers require Relativity to work.
In a GPS, relativity is required to get the specific location of your car or whatever vehicle to be able to direct you in the right direction. Without Relativity, your location would be far off from the destination because the GPS needs to calculate the specific routes at specific times(I don't know the specifics, however I can make a good guess o how it works).
Actually he did. Or as ACG52 himself might have put it, he did, he did, he did, he did, he did, he did, he did, he did, he did ……The one thing I'll agree with newts on is the method for "confirming" SR is an assault on logic. Particularly the H&K "clocks on an airplane"garbage. Direct measurement came nowhere near matching the theory, so certain variables were artificially accounted for, ignoring other significant ones until the numbers of the prediction matched the result. Accounting for fractions of variables is voodoo science.
And even if the clocks were off by the predicted amount, there's no justification for us to believe that "time" changed more so than the clocks. Too many obvious variables are ignored to pretend the theory fit.
Hafele + Keating certainly manipulated the data so that they could achieve fame by pretending that they their experiment had verified relativity. But the basic principles of gravitational and speed time-dilation, which H+K falsely claimed to have verified, are well supported by the GPS and the fact that atomic clocks keep the same time at sea level.That depends what you mean by ‘time’ and a ‘clock’. Relativity predicts that experiments will give the same results provided your spaceship is not accelerating. So if you oscillate a weight on a spring, and time it with an atomic clock, you will still record exactly the same number of oscillations per second whatever your speed through the aether. You could explain this by saying that the spring is also a clock, but since all processes slow by the same amount, saying that time slows down is not especially illogical.Oh look, newts is back calling science a religion again.
My post was really about SR and LET making the same predictions. Every sentence, other than the first, contains either SR or LET or both. Educated relativists say that SR makes the same predictions as LET, yet nobody here has acknowledged the fact. This is something SR ‘followers’ do not like to accept, so they ignore the substance and try to read something different into my post. People deliberately misrepresent my post because they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the truth, and I get scapegoated. But at least Swansont has developed a conscience and a sense of humour. Lorentzian relativity is correct; SR is neither right nor wrong, taken literally it is just nonsense.
I saw that he downvoted your post, so I upvoted it.
I never vote down Bignose’s posts, he is my biggest fan. I could make an analogy with Galileo and Pope Urban Vll were I not forbidden.
0 -
If SR didn't work, neither would GPS, your computer, or the accelerators at CERN.
I understand that you believe SR devoutly, and that you find it very upsetting that there are infidels who do not share your faith, as you have said so many times, indeed I cannot recall you ever posting anything much else.But can you justify your belief by explaining why SR is necessary for computers to work?-4 -
"In your frame, nothing changes."
and
" you clock running slow"
seem contradictory.
Am I missing something?
The modern theory of relativity was created by Lorentz et al, based on the speed of light being constant relative to the aether. Lorentz’s aether theory (LET) is simple and logical, and correctly predicts the result of experiments. SR contains no original maths, Einstein just copied Lorentz’s equations. SR is essentially LET except that all observers pretend that their reference frame is stationary in the aether, which is of course nonsensical.SR is unfalsifiable because the high priests merely ordain that it makes the same predictions as the correct theory of nature LET. When educated people like Dingle or Sagnac argue that SR is wrong, they are not arguing about how the universe behaves, because both they and the relativity experts know full well it behaves as predicted by LET. Rather what they argue about, is how SR predicts the universe should behave. But SR does not describe a possible universe, it is a religious belief not a scientific theory, so it makes no real predictions. As such if the high priests ordain that SR makes the same predictions as LET, I do not see how the edict can be logically challenged.If you want to find out about relativity, I suggest you research the history of LET, and pay little attention to either the Einstein-worshippers’ lies or the ignorant opinions of relativity critics who do not understand LET.-3 -
Planes fly
The religious extremist Dawkins proclaims that planes fly because of science, and his disciples blindly accept the lie as gospel.The reason there are planes flying around is that people invented them in defiance of accepted scientific belief, not because of it. In the late 19th century, the leading physicist Lord Kelvin declared them impossible, but a bunch of crackpots ignored the experts and invented them anyway. Frank Whittle encountered similar resistance from the experts with his jet engine.This does not prove that physics in general holds back technology, as there are many counter-examples such as Maxwell’s theoretical work leading directly to radio. But it does show how science-believers will accept anything they are told by a high priest of science-belief, even when it is clearly the opposite of the truth. Another example is the “relativity of wrong” sermon by the Assimov, which I debunk on another site it would be against the rules to advertise, so I should feel free to bring applicable parts of that discussion here.-1 -
And I disagree in the strongest terms.
Using only words, describe how a golf ball sitting on a tee flies exactly 207.7 yards downrange. And I require that in using your words, that is it obvious that the prediction is 207.7 yards, and not 208.7 or 206.7 yards.
If all you want is a 'words' description of what the equations are saying, those are out there. But words will never make as good a prediction as math. I just don't see how you think it can.
As Ringer says, words have their limitations but so does maths. Your question is meaningless unless somebody knows what a yard is. The easiest way to do this would be to show them a 1 yard stick, but you would still need to tell them in words. Using maths to explain a yard would be impossible unless they already knew what say an inch was.In the absence of air, the distance flown would be calculated by balancing the vertical component of the velocity with gravity to calculate the time of flight, and then assuming the horizontal component of the velocity remains constant. That is a principle which needs to be explained in words not mathematical symbols.Given the same data, we would calculate the same distance in a similar manner, so we agree on the physics. I am still having to argue about abstract ideas, can I not interest you in the magnetism question? I think Uncool is avoiding the issues, and all he really wants to do is a SR calculation to get some more green marks from fellow relativity-believers; but don’t tell him I said so.0 -
That's your choice, since it's your picture.
Once again, I'm offering to do the calculation. Do you want me to or not?
Even though the experiments cannot be performed exactly as I described, you should still be able to judge what the results would be.Diagram 1 involves a wire and an electron both stationary relative to the lab. In diag 2 the electron moves relative to the lab. In diag 3 the whole experiment in 2 is put on a conveyor belt. Alternatively the observer could have been put on a conveyor belt and moved to the right at 1 m/s.It is a yes/no question as to whether the electron accelerates towards the wire. The force cannot be calculated as I have not specified the number of moving electrons in the wire.I would have to guess, and keep in mind that this is just a wild guess, it's because the entire point of this thread is a discussion of the difference between if physics is about 'why' or 'how'. Or is the difference of why and how in a thread named 'is physics about why' somehow off topic?
The original thread was about whether a physics hypothesis could be expressed in words rather than maths. I argue that a proper theory can always explain why, or how, things happen, in words; and that if all that is available is a mathematical formula that makes predictions, that is a sign of human ignorance not a sign that the universe is mysterious and mystical. In this regard using the word ’how’ rather than ’why’ is neither here nor there.
0 -
You're confusing why and how.
Why is it that people here are so reluctant to discuss physics, and only seem to want to argue about the meaning of words? Or should that be “How is it that people here are so reluctant to discuss physics, and only seem to want to argue about the meaning of words?”
First, "If we move the whole set-up in the second diagram to the left at 1 m/s, we get the third diagram" is false. The third diagram has the lone electron show no movement towards the wire (as you've said that it's the same as the first diagram with the nuclei moving to the left instead of the electrons moving to the right), but you labeled the second diagram with the electron moving towards the wire.
In the first diagram the electron does not move towards the wire, in the second and third it does. Do you agree?
0 -
How do I delete this post?
0 -
Wow, another bunch of words that seems to have nothing to do with the post it's responding to.
I am sorry words cause you so much distress, so to ease your affliction I have drawn you a picture.
0 -
So you're saying one of the founders of quantum electrodynamics doesn't understand electromagnetism? And that doesn't seem a stretch to you.
Also, he had an entire aside about how asking why tends to be basically useless.
Maybe you consider Feynman to be so great, that you have to accept the literal truth of everything he says? It is perhaps pointless to ask why the universe exists, and only a fantasist like Hawking would consider that a question of physics.Asking why things burn is not pointless. A couple of hundred years ago people like yourself would have been convinced it was explained by phlogiston, and would have been upset to hear phlogiston described as an imaginary being. Nowadays we know that burning just involves electrons and atomic nuclei rearranging themselves and emitting photons, which is such a sound theory that it is universally accepted by the most sceptical as well as people of all religions. It is only pointless to ask why, if the question can never be answered.People asked why Kepler’s laws worked. Newton answered this with his mechanics and gravity. People asked what caused gravity; after much thought Newton could not find an answer, so he declared the cause of gravity had no place in experimental philosophy. Newton’s scorn for seeking a cause for gravity is well placed when applied to gravitons, as inventing imaginary beings which make no testable predictions, is the stuff of religion not physics. But some theories of gravity do make testable predictions, such as Le Sage gravity which makes wrong predictions.Feynman must have spent hundreds of hours trying to come up with a theory to explain the predictions of QED. It was only when he failed that he concluded it was pointless. He might be right, and thinking up such a theory might exceed the capacity of the human mind, but it might not.So like attracts like, despite evidence to the contrary? That's not really asking why, that's just making things up.
You see the phrase “contrary to popular belief”, and translate it as “despite evidence to the contrary”. I guess that is standard behaviour for a physics-believer, and indeed most humans. If currents both going in the same direction attract, and currents going in opposite directions repel, that could be seen as like attracting like, and opposites repelling. Is that really such a difficult concept to understand?
I like how you decided not to respond to all of the other parts of my post. No explanation of "obviously" or "illogical". Are you ever going to explain?
Obviously you know that Maxwell figured out the maths of magnetism 50 years before the advent of SR. Illogical because you are seeking to explain the magnetic field, something which has mass, in terms of reference frames which do not have mass.
-2 -
Why must you presume to know who my colleagues even are? Why does that even matter in the least? How does this address any of the concerns brought up to you?
If you had said which current theories you believe to be correct, which wrong and which dodgy, that would have been interesting. It would also be interesting if you would explain why you do not share your opinions. Merely taking offence at whatever I post, not so interesting.Do you want me to do the calculation?
As you know, special relativity is deemed to give the same results as the Lorentz aether theory. What I would like you to do is explain magnetism using LET, for the special case where the earth is stationary in the aether. Then I can evaluate what the theory actually means, no calculations needed at this stage.
0 -
In my experience with you, newts, I cited original works
I did not mean to sound ungrateful, rather to try to get more focus on the physics. I like the fact that in your posts you frequently state that it is likely that some current theories are wrong; but I am not aware of you ever stating specifically which theories you consider wrong. I guess if you did, you would be in trouble with your colleagues; but if everybody is too afraid to be controversial, how can wrong theories ever be replaced?
Now, a wire here is assumed to lack charge relative to our original frame; this means that the linear density of the positive and negative charges (protons and electrons) is equal relative to this frame. In other words, relative to this frame ........................
Thanks for providing the physicists’ explanation. Obviously whoever came up with that theory knew the answer he wanted to achieve, but the problem is that it is too complex and illogical for me to test it. Presumably it predicts the correct Lorentz force on an electron moving parallel to the wire, but does it also predict the same numerical value for an electron moving directly towards and away from a wire?The Lorentz force acts on an electron moving in a magnetic field; but if the electron is stationary and the magnet moves, then the force on the electron is traditionally explained by saying that a changing magnetic field creates an electric field. Clearly it is illogical to have two different explanations for the force resulting from the relative movement between an electron and a magnet. So it might seem logical to assume that magnetic and electric forces are somehow the same thing.However if we start a current flowing in a superconducting ring, the ring now contains more energy; so in theory if it was put on a very accurate scale, it would register greater mass. The kinetic energy of the electrons flowing round the ring, contribute an insignificant quantity of the added mass. So most of the added mass must be contained in the magnetic field surrounding the ring.Magnetic fields therefore exist in the same way that electric fields exist. A hydrogen atom is lighter than the combined mass of a proton and an electron, because the electric fields partially cancel out. Similarly two magnets locked together under magnetic force, must have lower mass than if they are separate. Magnetic and electric forces are both a disturbance or compression of the surrounding space, but they cannot be the same thing.0 -
I'm curious; since your other trolling seems to be successful, why add in sexism?
Actually my other attempts at trolling have not been successful, I have tried to provoke physics-believers into discussing and defending the details of their beliefs, but all I have had in response is vague generalisations and being told I am ignorant and heretical.
Magnetism is a good example of why physics should also be about why things happen, and not just be about what happens.
What is the explanation of why two wires next to each other with currents moving in the same direction, move towards each other?
How is this explained when electrons normally push each other apart?
In theory, if one of the wires was replaced by a hollow tube, and electrons were fired down the middle, then the electron paths would curve due to the wire’s magnetic field and collide with the side of the tube, forcing it towards or away from the wire depending on the direction of the currents. But that does not explain the equal and opposite force that the flying electrons exert on the wire.In physics-speak, one could say that the force between two wires is the result of the Lorentz force on the moving electrons, but that does nothing what a magnetic field is or why an electric current creates a magnetic field.Physicists appear to have mastered magnetic fields mathematically, and to use in technology, but figuring out what they really are may be beyond the capacity of the human brain.-2 -
Furthermore, to be extremely pedantic, modern physics actually doesn't have why gravity works. We have proposed ideas like the graviton, but no gravitons have been detected to date. So, you in fact have picked as your example of something simple enough to explain and understand as something we don't have a complete explanation and understanding of. Kind of ironic, really.
Newton did not explain what caused gravity, but he did simplify the solar system by showing that tidal forces are just differential gravity. Likewise we now know that the strong nuclear force is just differential electric forces. The aim should be to reduce the number of forces in the universe as low as possible; which could be down to only 1, but that 1 force could have no proper explanation.
You really shortchange supporters of epicycle theory. A is going around B while B is going around C is really easy to explain.
Epicycles might be simple for great minds like yourself and Bignose. But if I had to explain planetary orbits to a female, I would sooner do so by pushing a pendulum so it swings in a circle, rather than have to screw a gramophone to a roundabout and then try to convince her that space contains comparable structures.Are you saying Richard Feynman didn't understand magnets because he couldn't explain it to this person?
No, what I would say is that Feynman could not explain magnetism because he did not really understand it, but it is an interesting clip. I do admire Feynman, he understood a lot and did his best to share his understanding; unlike today’s celebrity physicists who understand little, and try to mysticise the universe.Given physicists’ current understanding, it would seem reasonable to say that electrons repel each other and attract positrons, merely because it is in their nature to do this. But clearly magnetism is not a fundamental force. Lay 2 wires side by side, there is negligible force between them, pass currents in the same direction the wires attract, pass currents in opposite directions they repel. These forces are described as magnetic, therefore at least some magnetic forces must be caused by electric currents or the motion of electrons. It also inclines me to think that, contrary to popular belief, magnetic forces should really be described as like attracting like, and repelling unlike.Is anybody interested in the cause of magnetism, or is that too mundane for modern physicists?0 -
Not to say that I support newts and his theory, but he's throwing physicists in with creationists and astrologists, and pretending that he's the skeptic of both creationism and astrology.
=Uncool-
My point was that getting people to change their opinions is never easy. Sceptic is too weak a word to describe my attitude to creationism or astrology; but I am a mainstream physics sceptic, because I know some of it be excellent, some fantasy, and much I am still unsure of.
Why is this a 'can always'? Under what obligation is any theory to be understandable to anyone of any intelligence level?
As Einstein is supposed to have said “if you really understand something you can explain it to your grandmother“. For Higgs-believers to claim that they understand how nature works, but that they cannot explain the theory to non-believers because they are not clever enough, just does not wash. Renaissance mathematicians had their mathematical theory of epicycles that predicted planetary orbits quite accurately, but they could not really explain it in words because it was nonsense. However just anybody can understand the idea that the sun’s gravitation pull causes planets to follow a curved path through space.
0 -
I think that there is some real conceit in the quote above, because it seems to imply that the universe is under some kind of obligation to be understood at some level.
My point is that wherever you arbitrarily draw the line, there is always going to be some group that will be unable to comprehend it. And I don't think that there is an unfairness inherent in this. No everyone will understand everything.
As for your imaginary beings, ..................... You had a very long thread in which you were given many, many chances to do this, and failed.
The only reason the universe seems incomprehensible is that humans are too stupid to make sense of it; things like lightning, rainbows and tides, were once mysteries but now we have proper explanations.The problem is that physics-believers believe in the omniscience of modern physicists; so if something lacks a rational explanation they believe it must be the universe’s fault, because they cannot accept the ignorance of the experts, and so they assume the universe must be mysterious and mystical.Physics-believers like to believe that they are intellectually superior to non-believers. But the fact is that proper theories can always be explained in words even to simpletons. The difficult part is coming up with a correct theory in the first place. Anybody can be taught that the earth is just a collection protons neutrons and electrons; but nobody could have ever figured that out without brilliant experiments and mathematical analysis.The idea that some theories can only be understood with maths, is just physics-believers’ excuse to believe in nonsense. Nobody can explain the Higgs field, because it is meaningless rubbish. It is supposed to give particles mass, but it is completely useless for predicting the mass of particles, therefore it is not a scientific theory. The only thing the Higgs field did predict was the existence of one or more particles within a mass range of several hundred percent. A physics-believer might describe that as “a model that makes the most accurate predictions about how the Universe acts”, but a non-believer might beg to differ.Go to a creationist website, and teach them to accept evolution. Convince a group of astrologists that astrology is bunk. Then criticise my failure.-1 -
One can argue that physics says noting about "why".
Physics is all about why. Why do electric currents flow? Because electrons and protons attract their like, and repel their unlike. Maxwell may have done some handy maths, but he still could not have answered that basic question, because electrons and protons had not been discovered in his time.But surely the biggest question in physics today is: why have physicists stop trying to make sense of the universe, and instead started to believe it is all mystical and mysterious, and can only be understood through maths, and invented more imaginary beings than anybody since the Ancient Greek mythologers-2 -
I can argue back (without using maths as well) that the answer importantly is "Yes", since light can be made using an electron and positron, or light can be made using a proton and an anti-proton.
Excellent logic. But you need to bear in mind that physics-believers do not believe in logic, they believe in imaginary beings, so they would argue that protons are made of quarks, but electrons are not, therefore your hypothesis is wrong.Usually a correct theory starts as a hypothesis, and then gets tested mathematically. For instance the idea that the nuclei of atoms are composed of protons. However sometimes the maths actually leads to a new discovery, for instance testing the hypothesis that the nucleus of an atom is composed solely of protons, led directly to the discovery of the neutron.0 -
The evidence shows that if people do not learn existing theories first, then they usually come up with meaningless rubbish which bears no relation to the real universe. However physicists who first studied existing theories before making their own contributions, like Higgs, Hawking, Gell-Mann and Witten, have also come up with nothing but meaningless nonsense which bears no relation to the real universe.Unless one has a mind like Newton, or spends one’s life doing experiments, it is highly unlikely that one would discover anything useful. So for most people the best way to contribute to the development of physics, is to continually remind each other that much of recent theoretical physics has no proper experimental backing, and is therefore likely to be wrong. Unfortunately humans are narrow-minded religious creatures, who are unable to do this as they are fully convinced that the standard model is the one true faith.Anyway Happy Christmas to everybody, and hopefully Santa will leave each of you an open-mind in your stocking.0
-
Gravitational potential depends on the inverse distance from a body such as the moon; gravitational force on the inverse square; tidal force on the inverse cube; and the difference in tidal force between the side nearest the moon and the side furthest, depends on the inverse fourth power of distance.
Gravitational potentials are measured in units of m²/s², forces in terms of m/s². Extending that logic, tidal force ought to be measured in /s², and difference in tidal force in /ms². More evidence that physicists choice of units are rather dodgy.
0 -
What you have managed to demonstrate is that you still have no idea what relativity says, or how it works. Nor do you even know what LET says, because everything that was true about the protons going at 1/2 c remains true in LET. When you want to criticize a theory, or claim that another theory is correct, at least try to have some basic understanding of what the theories say.
All my calculations were done on the basis of the earth being stationary in the aether. I did not state that, because I thought if I had done, you would likely have refused to discuss the maths. I do not claim to understand SR, indeed I think it is something that cannot be understood, just something to be believed in.
Do you have a reference for that?
http://en.wikipedia....tz_ether_theory says the opposite: "However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET."
The preceding sentence is, "Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment." So it is metaphysics to speak of one being real while the other is not. Wouldn't a reasonable scientist let evidence falsify a theory? What does it mean to say that one theory is correct while an equivalent theory, with equivalent evidence, is wrong?
One major reason why relativity principle seems coincidental; is that physicists have spent the last 100 years assuming it is a gift from God, rather than trying to derive it from the aether model.
I favour LET because I have a mechanical model of the universe, based on compressible spheres, which requires that the speed of light be constant relative to this aether. It is really the relativists who muddy the water, by continually saying how Einstein changed our perception of the universe, by showing that that Newtonian concepts of space and time are wrong; when in actual fact LET accurately describes the universe based on absolute space and speed. LET is not practical for calculating things, so SR certainly has a use. But the relativity-believers are still much to blame by trying to sweep the aether under the carpet, by indoctrinating people into believing that SR is the one true faith.
I specifically mentioned the frame in which the speed was being measured was that of the particle.
The resident high priests of relativity, are now arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Which is reminiscent of the Dingle affair, where the great minds of relativity argued not about the result of an experiment (the twins paradox), but rather about what SR should predict the result to be.
0 -
Specifically, emitting something (probably a bunch of particles) that has a total of 0.309 times the mass of a proton in energy and 0 momentum relative to this frame.
Where are you getting this equation? p = mv? Remember, m depends on v. You can't simply use the original masses.
You've also forgotten the momentum that the other particles are carrying with them. Energy in one frame means momentum in other frames.
Given how much you've forgotten or misunderstood, not surprising.
Using the convention you've chosen, we'll let proton masses and the speed of light be 1 (there is some system of units for which this is true, so we can just work within that system). Then in the original frame, .309 was emitted from the reaction at speed 0. For the sake of ease of writing, I'll assume it's one particle; then this particle has rest mass of .309. In our new frame, then, this particle has velocity 1/2, and therefore momentum .179 and energy .359. Our original protons do, of course, end up with velocity 1/2, which does (as you said) end up with .359 energy missing. Note, however, that their total momentum is 1.157, rather than the original momentum of 4/3 - and the missing momentum there is .179.
So in both cases, the energy that has been extracted is in the form of this particle (or system of particles), which has rest mass .309. The rest mass is all of the energy that can be extracted from the system without having something else massive there to "bleed the momentum" of the particle (or system of particles), i.e. to act as a momentum sink; I apologize if the phrasing I used earlier confused you.
Instead of talking about the energy being emitted as photons; I could have assumed that the collision between the 2 protons going at ½, produced a particle of mass 0.309. In the collision between the proton moving at 4/5 and the stationary proton; if a particle of rest mass 0.309 were produced, and were to end up moving alongside the 2 protons at speed ½, then it would have a total mass/energy of 0.359. So the same particle could be produced in each collision, but the energy emitted would be different.
So in the first collision, a relativity-believer would measure the speed of both protons approaching each other, as ½ lightspeed; then decide to believe that the closing speed is actually 4/5, because the collision would produce the same particles as a proton moving at 4/5 colliding with a stationary proton. But the reason for such shenanigans, is that the concept of relative motion is invalid; because the speed of light is constant relative to the aether and not constant relative to anything else.
On the contrary, it is the extrapolation of Newtonian calculations at high speeds that is nonsensical and done only because people were taught to do it. When you do an actual experiment, you find that SR is correct. And in science, that's what matters — models that agree with nature. GPS works. Particle accelerators are designed by applying relativity, and they work. The model agrees with nature.
Newtonian mechanics, like SR, does not make sense as a description of the universe at any speed. LET makes perfect sense, and agrees with experiment. That is why proper scientists who want to make sense of the universe favour LET; whilst only the fantasists, who prefer to think the universe is mystical and mysterious, choose to believe in SR.
0
Is Relativity Wrong?
in Speculations
Posted
I would not say the physics is the same, as SR is surely based on the constancy of one-way lightspeed. It is just that no experiment can be done to distinguish between the theories if the followers of SR decree that both theories make the same experimental predictions.
This thread is really bringing out the best in people. First Swansont makes a joke, now Uncool acknowledges the wisdom of the Bible. Perhaps you would like to apply the beam and mote theorem to Dawkins’ ridicule of religion and the Cool Fox’s lambasting of astrology, in light of the fact that both appear to accept the possibility of time travel because they have been told it is allowed by GR.
A silly answer fitting well a sheep.
Since the physics is not in dispute, I am disinclined to spend a long time analysing the data. But in your expert opinion would you say that Wikipedia is justified in saying that H+K verified relativity to within 10%, or not?