| |
Main
Date: 02 Sep 2007 07:10:06
From: Theodora Deski
Subject: relativistic protons
|
Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
any info !!
tdeski@webtv.net
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2007 04:15:48
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sep 4, 9:35 pm, Helpful person <rrl...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 9:43 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > oriel36 wrote:
>
> > Because of the work of
> > Fresnel (who also invented the modern achromatic telescope objective,
> > a thing Newton mistakenly said was impossible) the wave theory was
> > absolutely dominant at the time Einstein came along.
>
> > John Savard
>
> Fresnel was not the first to advocate the achromatic doublet. It was
> first proposed during Newton's reign. The proposer (whose name I do
> not remember) was destroyed by Newton's ridicule and was never heard
> of again. The first achromatic lens was then made (considerably
> later) by Chester More Hall (sp?) for a microscope objective.
>
> www.richardfisher.com
Because Newton rejected the idea of a medium it left genuine
investigators with a dilemma by the middle of the 19th century.You
pair are indoctrinated into a belief of a Newtonian aether/absolute
space and Albert got rid of it in 1905 but the dilemma of men who
wanted to escape Newton's notions was based on the fact that they
learned to live with 'gravitational theory' of the Earth orbiting the
Sun without a medium but could not work with the Sun illuminating the
Earth with one .
You can read it yourself at the top right hand column from the article
in 1843 -
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
These poor men had no idea of an astrological framework at the core of
Newton's agenda and if they did,they were too afraid to object.In the
end,they dumped aether on Newton as 'absolute space' and created a new
fiction called 'relativity',an exercise in solving the can of worms
problem by creating a bigger can.
As I said,it is enough to show genuine investigators the original
works of Copernicus,Kepler,Galileo,Huygens (all of whom are
astronomers) than go down the slippery slope of empirical doctrines.I
am not obliged to explain Newton never mind the exotic 20th century
extensions of Newtonian thinking but I do recognise that genuine
dynamicists may wish to revisit orbital geometries without the chain
of astrological geometry and Newton worship.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 13:35:52
From: Helpful person
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sep 4, 9:43 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> Because of the work of
> Fresnel (who also invented the modern achromatic telescope objective,
> a thing Newton mistakenly said was impossible) the wave theory was
> absolutely dominant at the time Einstein came along.
>
> John Savard
Fresnel was not the first to advocate the achromatic doublet. It was
first proposed during Newton's reign. The proposer (whose name I do
not remember) was destroyed by Newton's ridicule and was never heard
of again. The first achromatic lens was then made (considerably
later) by Chester More Hall (sp?) for a microscope objective.
www.richardfisher.com
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 11:27:14
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sep 4, 6:45 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 4, 9:42 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > " For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
> > sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
> > they are always seen direct," Newton
>
> > The 'reference framehopping ' of Isaac where he jumps from apparent
> > retrogrades seen from Earth to true motions seen from the Sun has no
> > precedence in an astronomical version of heliocentric reasoning,not by
> > Copernicus,not Kepler,not Galileo,none of them.
>
> That doesn't mean he was wrong; it only means he went further than
> they did. But you are too blind to see that.
>
> Have a nice day.
>
> Austin
The remark of Kepler applies to this situatiion where the
appreciation of heliocentric reasoning remains destroyed by an
idiosyncratic and false approach to retrogrades and their resolution -
"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of
that diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . "
Kepler
The use of an orbitally moving Earth between Venus and Mars in
resolving the observed behavior of the other planets simultaneously
allows axial rotation to explain the daily cycle -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
I have explained your framehopping absolute/relative space garbage of
Newton in terms of his false approach to retrogrades and that
achieves more astronomically than all the commentaries of the last few
centuries.It takes just a few moments of enjoyment watching the time
lapse footage of the Earth overtaking Saturn and Jupiter to
disentangle all that framehopping nonsense and leave people to enjoy
the insights of Copernicus in the way they can only be enjoyed.
How anybody can continue believing in things which are not true is not
my business,I present the correct principles of Copernicus allied
with commentaries from Kepler and Galileo showing how orbital
comparisons made from a moving Earth resolve retrogrades
noptwithstanding modern time lapse footage which carries more weight
than anything else.It is disconcerting to not have a single person
spot the difference between the correct Copernican resolution for
retrogrades and the false approach by Newton but I assure you he did
not "go 'further than they did", he wrecked havoc with basic
astronomical tenets and that is final.
If I had to do this through an open forum then so be it,the fact
remains that you no longer have your 'universal theory of gravitation'
as it applies to astronomical structure and motion and that is big
enough news .
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 10:45:12
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sep 4, 9:42 am, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> " For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
> sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
> they are always seen direct," Newton
>
> The 'reference framehopping ' of Isaac where he jumps from apparent
> retrogrades seen from Earth to true motions seen from the Sun has no
> precedence in an astronomical version of heliocentric reasoning,not by
> Copernicus,not Kepler,not Galileo,none of them.
That doesn't mean he was wrong; it only means he went further than
they did. But you are too blind to see that.
Have a nice day.
Austin
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 07:42:02
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sep 4, 2:43 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > The exotic early 20th century concepts managed to dump aether on Isaac
> > as 'absolute space' anyway even though Isaac explicitly rejected such
> > a notion ,in short,they lied to get the 'relativity' concept to fly -
>
> > "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
> > is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
> > of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
> > gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
> > for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
> > be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
> > celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
> > microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
> > their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
> > Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
> > would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
> > weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
> > such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
> > Optics 1704 Newton
>
> It is well known that Newton advocated the "corpuscular theory" of
> light, rather than the "wave theory" of light. Because of the work of
> Fresnel (who also invented the modern achromatic telescope objective,
> a thing Newton mistakenly said was impossible) the wave theory was
> absolutely dominant at the time Einstein came along.
>
Ah,who am I kidding !Newton re-invented astronomy to suit his agenda
and mathematicians re-invented Newton to suit their exotic 20th
century concepts.
> Thus, while Newton himself never advocated an "ether", absolute space
> *combined* with the then-dominant wave theory of light led to an
> ether. Descriptions of the contemporary state of scientific belief
> were not intended to lay the misconception of the ether directly to
> Newton; it would in any case be irrelevant, as the issues that lead to
> resolving whether or not there is an "ether" did not reach the point
> where they could be empirically investigated until the time of James
> Clerk Maxwell and then Michaelson and Morley. So at the time of
> Newton, no blame can be attached for the mistaken concept of the ether
> which other investigators then had in any case.
>
Look sunshine,they no longer associate 'aether' with 'absolute space'
but still do not know what Isaac was up to,that takes the eyes of an
astronomer.It is a few years now since I took that early 20th century
nonsense apart and who cares if there are still people making a few
dollars out of that business,the point is not showing where Newton was
wrong ,the point is that multiple productive avenues remain dormant
because of the astrological framework at the core of late 17th century
astronomical speculations.
> > Newton might no
> > less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; Albert 1920
> > Not even close Albert,Newton had something else in mind with absolute/
> > relative space and time but then again few appear to be listening.
>
> Albert Einstein's argument was valid - one could imagine an ether that
> does nothing to slow down the planets, and Einstein meant to dispense
> with absolute space, not merely with ether as a physical substance.
> Even if it is unfair to condemn Newton for what is only foolish in his
> much later disciples, when new knowledge with which to stand a bit
> higher upon Newton's shoulders has become available.
>
Anyone here with a bit of intelligence recognises how Isaac got it
wrong with viewing planetary motion from the Earth and then recognises
how it shows up in terms of absolute/relative space -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses."
The apparent motions of the planets against the stellar background are
resolved from an orbitally moving Earth,remember -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct," Newton
The 'reference framehopping ' of Isaac where he jumps from apparent
retrogrades seen from Earth to true motions seen from the Sun has no
precedence in an astronomical version of heliocentric reasoning,not by
Copernicus,not Kepler,not Galileo,none of them.I thought at leasty a
few people would be relieved to discover what Isaac was up to with his
late 17th century version of flooding astronomy with meaninglkess
definitions -
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
> > Again,the a ballistic agenda
> > applied to planetary motion is a valid way to approach planetary
> > motion but for goodness sake,do not turn astronomy on its head to do
> > it.
>
> I do not think we *are* turning astronomy on its head. We do not
> include the Sun's motion in our calculations when we do not need to do
> so, and we do not include and constantly subtract out the Earth's
> motion when heliocentric astronomy *exists* because of the obviousness
> of the absurdity of doing so. This appears to be your main objection
> to the current state of astronomical thinking, but it is hard for me
> to even imagine your point of view.
>
The thinking that exists is astrological and not astronomical,of
course a mathematicians would hardly know this as they are still
building as if the original astrological framework of Flamsteed was
valid.Relativity is just an extreme symptom of that unfortunate error
yet I did say it remains useful in highlighting exactly Newton's
idiosyncratic methods.
I work productively on climatological and geological matters from the
basis of the gorgeous reasoning known to Kepler and Galileo arising
from the insights of Copernicus and comment on the Flamsteed/Newton
standard as an uneccessary strain on the course of an astronomical
discipline that stretches back to remote antiquity.With 21st century
imaging it is easier than ever to see where conceptual modifications
are required for climatological and geological purposes and if if the
dominant Newtonian perspective still exist,I can see where they will
eventually be bypassed in future.
> John Savard- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 06:43:43
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
oriel36 wrote:
> The exotic early 20th century concepts managed to dump aether on Isaac
> as 'absolute space' anyway even though Isaac explicitly rejected such
> a notion ,in short,they lied to get the 'relativity' concept to fly -
>
> "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
> is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
> of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
> gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
> for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
> be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
> celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
> microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
> their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
> Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
> would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
> weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
> such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
> Optics 1704 Newton
It is well known that Newton advocated the "corpuscular theory" of
light, rather than the "wave theory" of light. Because of the work of
Fresnel (who also invented the modern achromatic telescope objective,
a thing Newton mistakenly said was impossible) the wave theory was
absolutely dominant at the time Einstein came along.
Thus, while Newton himself never advocated an "ether", absolute space
*combined* with the then-dominant wave theory of light led to an
ether. Descriptions of the contemporary state of scientific belief
were not intended to lay the misconception of the ether directly to
Newton; it would in any case be irrelevant, as the issues that lead to
resolving whether or not there is an "ether" did not reach the point
where they could be empirically investigated until the time of James
Clerk Maxwell and then Michaelson and Morley. So at the time of
Newton, no blame can be attached for the mistaken concept of the ether
which other investigators then had in any case.
> Newton might no
> less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; Albert 1920
> Not even close Albert,Newton had something else in mind with absolute/
> relative space and time but then again few appear to be listening.
Albert Einstein's argument was valid - one could imagine an ether that
does nothing to slow down the planets, and Einstein meant to dispense
with absolute space, not merely with ether as a physical substance.
Even if it is unfair to condemn Newton for what is only foolish in his
much later disciples, when new knowledge with which to stand a bit
higher upon Newton's shoulders has become available.
> Again,the a ballistic agenda
> applied to planetary motion is a valid way to approach planetary
> motion but for goodness sake,do not turn astronomy on its head to do
> it.
I do not think we *are* turning astronomy on its head. We do not
include the Sun's motion in our calculations when we do not need to do
so, and we do not include and constantly subtract out the Earth's
motion when heliocentric astronomy *exists* because of the obviousness
of the absurdity of doing so. This appears to be your main objection
to the current state of astronomical thinking, but it is hard for me
to even imagine your point of view.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 06:18:17
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sep 4, 1:47 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca > wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
> > My sympathy to the many people who still continue to follow Newton's
> > agenda never mind the exotic 20th century nonsense
>
> If the Special Theory of Relativity were "exotic 20th century
> nonsense" instead of merely the simple truth, our particle
> accelerators would not work.
>
> Perhaps you would call that shameless empiricism? The purpose of
> science is to remain in contact with reality, and it succeeds in this
> purpose when it makes accurate predictions, even if we may, through
> empiricism, allow our theories to run ahead of having a philosophical
> basis, or we may simplify matters by looking at things through
> perspectives other than our own.
>
> John Savard
So now you know that Newton's relative/absolute space is nothing more
than his false view of retrogrades and their resolution -
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion"
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
The exotic early 20th century concepts managed to dump aether on Isaac
as 'absolute space' anyway even though Isaac explicitly rejected such
a notion ,in short,they lied to get the 'relativity' concept to fly -
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704 Newton
The early 20th century nonsense is useful for highlighting what Isaac
was up to with those relative/absolute definitions and then trace
things back even further to Flamsteed where the really big error in
principle occured.Of course some are going to find that passage from
Newton disconcerting insofar as the whole scenario of 'relativity' was
dispensing with an aether which Albert associates with Newton's
'absolute space' -
" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; Albert 1920
Not even close Albert,Newton had something else in mind with absolute/
relative space and time but then again few appear to be listening.It
is now more satisfying to show how Copernicus,Kpler and Galileo
thought than it is to untangle the twisted threads which Newton
contrived to get his agenda to work.Again,the a ballistic agenda
applied to planetary motion is a valid way to approach planetary
motion but for goodness sake,do not turn astronomy on its head to do
it.
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 05:47:39
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
oriel36 wrote:
> My sympathy to the many people who still continue to follow Newton's
> agenda never mind the exotic 20th century nonsense
If the Special Theory of Relativity were "exotic 20th century
nonsense" instead of merely the simple truth, our particle
accelerators would not work.
Perhaps you would call that shameless empiricism? The purpose of
science is to remain in contact with reality, and it succeeds in this
purpose when it makes accurate predictions, even if we may, through
empiricism, allow our theories to run ahead of having a philosophical
basis, or we may simplify matters by looking at things through
perspectives other than our own.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 04 Sep 2007 05:42:25
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
Theodora Deski wrote:
> I
> know what protons are but what are relativistic protons?
A relativistic proton is simply a proton that moves so quickly that
the effects predicted by the Special Theory of Relativity are
noticeable.
This web page
http://resources.yesican-science.ca/trek/radiation/final/assignment_key_general2.html
shows two graphs of the energy of a proton in electron volts against
its velocity as a fraction of the speed of light:
According to the second of those graphs, a proton with an energy of 1
GeV travels at 80% of the speed of light.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 01:09:00
From: Isaac
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Sep 2, 8:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Theodora Deski wrote:
> > > Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
> > > find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
> > > at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
> > > know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
> > > any info !!
> > > tde...@webtv.net
> >
> > Relativistic protons, such as found in cosmic rays and particle
> > accelerators, have little to do with the vacuum energy of *virtual*
> > particles... which may or may not contribute to cosmic expansion.
> >
> > Relativistic refers to relative velocities that are typical a
> > significant fraction of the speed of light for a given observer.
>
> How long do you think you can peddling that self-serving
> mathematical nonsense that nobody really cares about ?.I am sure the
> observational astrologers would be all too happy to leave you to your
> 'relativistic' devices because they are too lazy or too silly to do
> real astronomy . In an era which needs closer links between astronomy
> and terrestrial disciplines such as climatology and geology there is
> little time for indulgences like Newtonian and the exotic 20th century
> mathematical attempts to be astronomers.
>
> Like a pyramid perched on its apex,the empirical involvement in
> astronomy has become very unstable insofar as at the core of Newton's
> original agenda (and the symptoms really surfaced in the early 20th
> century) is an error in principle,specifically an astrological
> core.You should listen to the words of a great mathematician,Pascal in
> this case, who knew what happens when such an error is made -
>
> "But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and
> are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort
> is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be
> good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is
> almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one
> principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see
> all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to
> draw false deductions from known principles."
>
> http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION.html
>
> My sympathy to the many people who still continue to follow Newton's
> agenda never mind the exotic 20th century nonsense but it is time to
> sober up and look at what you are really missing - the ability to mesh
> astronomy with climate studies,geological dynamics and many other
> productive avenues.
You did not use lamb. You put camel up there instaed.
BIG MISTAKE!
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2007 01:07:45
From: Isaac
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
oriel36 wrote:
> On Sep 2, 4:01 pm, shawn <john...@spamhole.net> wrote:
> > Theodora Deski wrote:
> > > Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
> > > find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
> > > at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
> > > know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
> > > any info !!
> > > tde...@webtv.net
> >
> > Try this for a primer:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
> >
> > Nothing about protons though.
> >
> > High energy protons are included in the set of particles that make up
> > cosmic rays. However I've never heard of a connection to dark energy.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays
> >
> > Shawn
>
> The only primer he will ever need is the 'Time Machine ' science
> fiction novel from 1898 -
>
> "Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
> required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
> Time is only a kind of Space" H.G. Well's narrative
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html
>
> All that relativistic cobblers of the last century goes right back to
> the original error created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton -
>
> "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
> equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
> truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
> for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
> more accurate deducing of the celestial motions."
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
>
> So,it all goes back to the Equation of Time,the 24 hour day and the
> natural noon cycles.Although Newton accurately expresses the Equation
> of Time in his idiosyncratic absolute/relative time way,his framework
> was the astrological framework of Flamsteed.
>
> In short,grow up,if people's concerns at the beginning of the last
> centuries were time travel machines ect,this era is concerned with
> climate and a deep need to understand what is going on.To understand
> global climate and the seasons you have to know the difference between
> the total length of the natural noon cycles and hemispherical
> variations in daylight/darkness or the common seasonal term
> 'lengthening and shortening ' of civil daylight.
To you there is much gobble de gouk! Shove lambs head up
ass. Sure curre!
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 12:34:43
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sep 2, 8:08 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com > wrote:
> Theodora Deski wrote:
> > Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
> > find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
> > at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
> > know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
> > any info !!
> > tde...@webtv.net
>
> Relativistic protons, such as found in cosmic rays and particle
> accelerators, have little to do with the vacuum energy of *virtual*
> particles... which may or may not contribute to cosmic expansion.
>
> Relativistic refers to relative velocities that are typical a
> significant fraction of the speed of light for a given observer.
How long do you think you can peddling that self-serving
mathematical nonsense that nobody really cares about ?.I am sure the
observational astrologers would be all too happy to leave you to your
'relativistic' devices because they are too lazy or too silly to do
real astronomy . In an era which needs closer links between astronomy
and terrestrial disciplines such as climatology and geology there is
little time for indulgences like Newtonian and the exotic 20th century
mathematical attempts to be astronomers.
Like a pyramid perched on its apex,the empirical involvement in
astronomy has become very unstable insofar as at the core of Newton's
original agenda (and the symptoms really surfaced in the early 20th
century) is an error in principle,specifically an astrological
core.You should listen to the words of a great mathematician,Pascal in
this case, who knew what happens when such an error is made -
"But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and
are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort
is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be
good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is
almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one
principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see
all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to
draw false deductions from known principles."
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION.html
My sympathy to the many people who still continue to follow Newton's
agenda never mind the exotic 20th century nonsense but it is time to
sober up and look at what you are really missing - the ability to mesh
astronomy with climate studies,geological dynamics and many other
productive avenues.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 19:08:14
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
Theodora Deski wrote:
> Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
> find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
> at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
> know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
> any info !!
> tdeski@webtv.net
>
Relativistic protons, such as found in cosmic rays and particle
accelerators, have little to do with the vacuum energy of *virtual*
particles... which may or may not contribute to cosmic expansion.
Relativistic refers to relative velocities that are typical a
significant fraction of the speed of light for a given observer.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 11:40:35
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 07:10:06 -0700, tdeski@webtv.net (Theodora Deski)
wrote:
>Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
>find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
>at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
>know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
>any info !!
>tdeski@webtv.net
Relativistic protons means protons that are moving close to the speed
of light. Let us have a reference to the article. Which magazine,
date of publication, etc.
Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 13:06:23
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sep 6, 7:47 pm, tde...@webtv.net (Theodora Deski) wrote:
> thank you Bud for answering...I found it actually in wikipedia after all
> as meaning the speed of light. here is the article that I was trying to
> undertand.http://newsblaze.com/story/20070820180611nnnn.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/T...
The real scientific misconduct of Piltdown man does not belong to the
perpetrator of the hoax but rather to the people who chose to continue
believing in it because it suited preconceived notions.Other than
setting up a neon sign telling his colleagues that it was a joke gone
astray his 'cricket bat' should have been enough but they kept it
going for almost 4 decades -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6054656.stm
The second generation astronomical misconduct continues unabated as
enormous amounts of effort and money are spent trying to prove
notions of the universe based on zodiacal geometry created by the
first generation guys such as Flamsteed and Newton -
http://www.space.com/news/070905_nasa_beyondeinstein.html
With most of humanity over the age of 30 seeing climate change
dramatically,the astronomical effort should be to look back at the
Earth from space and give a proper explanation for the seasons along
with the background global climate as one productive avenue among
many.
Perhaps people do object to money being spent on people who cannot
even explain the relationship between clocks and the axial cycle
correctly or rather found their notions on 'sidereal time' motions of
the Earth that simply do not exist but judging by the recommendations
sent to Nasa,it looks like less than responsible people want to keep
the charade going at the expense of genuine astronomy -
http://www.space.com/news/070905_nasa_beyondeinstein.html
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2007 11:47:18
From: Theodora Deski
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
thank you Bud for answering...I found it actually in wikipedia after all
as meaning the speed of light. here is the article that I was trying to
undertand.
http://newsblaze.com/story/20070820180611nnnn.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 08:37:09
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
On Sep 2, 4:01 pm, shawn <john...@spamhole.net > wrote:
> Theodora Deski wrote:
> > Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
> > find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
> > at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
> > know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
> > any info !!
> > tde...@webtv.net
>
> Try this for a primer:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
>
> Nothing about protons though.
>
> High energy protons are included in the set of particles that make up
> cosmic rays. However I've never heard of a connection to dark energy.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays
>
> Shawn
The only primer he will ever need is the 'Time Machine ' science
fiction novel from 1898 -
"Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space" H.G. Well's narrative
http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html
All that relativistic cobblers of the last century goes right back to
the original error created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton -
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
So,it all goes back to the Equation of Time,the 24 hour day and the
natural noon cycles.Although Newton accurately expresses the Equation
of Time in his idiosyncratic absolute/relative time way,his framework
was the astrological framework of Flamsteed.
In short,grow up,if people's concerns at the beginning of the last
centuries were time travel machines ect,this era is concerned with
climate and a deep need to understand what is going on.To understand
global climate and the seasons you have to know the difference between
the total length of the natural noon cycles and hemispherical
variations in daylight/darkness or the common seasonal term
'lengthening and shortening ' of civil daylight.
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2007 09:01:25
From: shawn
Subject: Re: relativistic protons
|
Theodora Deski wrote:
> Wikipedia does not have information on relativistic protons (that I can
> find). Can anyone give information on this? The article I am looking
> at more or less says they are the energy pushing the universe apart. I
> know what protons are but what are relativistic protons? thank you for
> any info !!
> tdeski@webtv.net
>
Try this for a primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
Nothing about protons though.
High energy protons are included in the set of particles that make up
cosmic rays. However I've never heard of a connection to dark energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays
Shawn
|
|
