On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT), Sanny wrote:

Partical Accelerators use electro magnetic waves to accelerate
particals using their charge.
Since electro magnetic waves travel at speed "c" the max speed they
can force a charged partical is c.

No. You make unwarranted assumptions and conclusions.

First, Van de Graff used a d.c. potential to accelerate electrons to
relativistic speeds. As the potential is d.c. your claims don't apply,
but the electrons never exceeded speed c.

Even when in DC the Electric Field travels at speed of light "c".
Electric field speed is always "c".

Second, while it is true that most modern accelerators use RF fields to
accelerate the particles, they are designed so the RF power is a
standing wave, carefully timed such that the particles enter the RF
cavity when the E field is already present so the particle is
accelerated. It should be obvious that this is the most efficient way to
accelerate particles (why put them into the cavities when there is no E
field present or it is aimed the wrong way?).

Here, I do not understand what you are saying.


* [example of ball in water]

This is a very bad example, unrelated to the issue at hand. With the
water traveling 2.000000 m/s, the ball can also travel 2.000000 m/s.
Indeed, due to thermal and density fluctuations in the water, it can
occasionally travel faster than 2.000000 m/s. And all bets are off for
turbulent flow in which a small enough ball could travel several times 2
m/s.... No analogous effects are observed for charged particles and EM
fields -- the EM field is NOT a fluid.

I have seen in River wood is floating. And I find Wood always floats
slower than the water.

Try an experiment Have a water flow and put some wood. You will see
the wood travels slower than the water carrying it. And never faster
than the water carrying it. I think its due to viscosity of water.

Bye
Sanny

If you accelerate a boat by squirting it with a jet of water from the shore it
can never travel faster than the jet.

However, I analysed this situation mathematically and found that the velocity
curve is notthing like the one acquired using the 'gamma mass increase'
concept, which is pretty well verified by experiment. Also, it doesn't explain
the increasing amount of energy tied up in charge moving near c.

MY explanation is that when a charge accelerates between electrodes, it
generates a reverse field, which opposes and weakens the applied field.
(something like a back emf in vacuum) . Because of the limited speed at which
the reverse field can move, it forms a kind of 'bubble' around the charge and a
vast amount of energy is tied up in maintaining a reverse field bubble. The
maths apparently pretty well matches that of the 'relativistic mass increase'.

Be Intelligent: http://www.GetClub.com/


Tom Roberts



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.

On Sep 3, 3:24*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:40:17 -0700 (PDT), Sanny wrote:
Partical Accelerators use electro magnetic waves to accelerate
particals using their charge.
Since electro magnetic waves travel at speed "c" the max speed they
can force a charged partical is c.

No. You make unwarranted assumptions and conclusions.

First, Van de Graff used a d.c. potential to accelerate electrons to
relativistic speeds. As the potential is d.c. your claims don't apply,
but the electrons never exceeded speed c.

Even when in DC the Electric Field travels at speed of light "c".
Electric field speed is always "c".

Second, while it is true that most modern accelerators use RF fields to
accelerate the particles, they are designed so the RF power is a
standing wave, carefully timed such that the particles enter the RF
cavity when the E field is already present so the particle is
accelerated. It should be obvious that this is the most efficient way to
accelerate particles (why put them into the cavities when there is no E
field present or it is aimed the wrong way?).

Here, I do not understand what you are saying.

* [example of ball in water]

This is a very bad example, unrelated to the issue at hand. With the
water traveling 2.000000 m/s, the ball can also travel 2.000000 m/s.
Indeed, due to thermal and density fluctuations in the water, it can
occasionally travel faster than 2.000000 m/s. And all bets are off for
turbulent flow in which a small enough ball could travel several times 2
m/s.... No analogous effects are observed for charged particles and EM
fields -- the EM field is NOT a fluid.

I have seen in River wood is floating. And I find Wood always floats
slower than the water.

Try an experiment Have a water flow and put some wood. You will see
the wood travels slower than the water carrying it. And never faster
than the water carrying it. I think its due to viscosity of water.

Bye
Sanny

If you accelerate a boat by squirting it with a jet of water from the shore it
can never travel faster than the jet.

However, I analysed this situation mathematically and found that the velocity
curve is notthing like the one acquired using the 'gamma mass increase'
concept, which is pretty well verified by experiment. Also, it doesn't explain
the increasing amount of energy tied up in *charge moving near c.

MY explanation is that when a charge accelerates between electrodes, it
generates a reverse field, which opposes and weakens the applied field.
(something like a back emf in vacuum) . Because of the limited speed at which
the reverse field can move, it forms a kind of 'bubble' around the charge and a
vast amount of energy is tied up in maintaining a reverse field bubble. The
maths apparently pretty well matches that of the 'relativistic mass increase'.

Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com/

Tom Roberts

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

----------------------
but you overlook the simple fact that
instead of writing

F=gamma ma
you can exactly methematical write

F/Gamm = ma
**and mass m remains constant*!!

ie
it is a vry important PHYSICSL understanding
physics is first of all physical phenomena
and not mathematical phenomena !!
AND IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE
FOR ADVACE OF SCIENCE !!
if you dont get it than sorry for you
and all alike you
because such misunderstanding as your conclution
was leading to the wrong notion
and nearly a RELIGION that you dont like
in at the botom of your post
that false undertanding of yourse
was leading
TO THE STUPID PHYSICS NOTION
THAT PHOTONS CANNOT HAVE MASS
BECAUSE IF THEY HAD
THEY COULD NOT REACH c !!!!!!

no tto mention 'curved space time ' etc etc

dont you get the importance of right physical interpretations!!???

such wrong interpretations lead to massless photons
and other stupidities like Higgs Bosond etc
that costed us a huge waist of human resources
and not least
waist of precious time !!
soMr Wilson just be aware for the burdain of **resposibiliy**
fo r flase interpretations of physical data !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:38:28 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Sep 3, 3:24*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


I have seen in River wood is floating. And I find Wood always floats
slower than the water.

Try an experiment Have a water flow and put some wood. You will see
the wood travels slower than the water carrying it. And never faster
than the water carrying it. I think its due to viscosity of water.

Bye
Sanny

If you accelerate a boat by squirting it with a jet of water from the shore it
can never travel faster than the jet.

However, I analysed this situation mathematically and found that the velocity
curve is notthing like the one acquired using the 'gamma mass increase'
concept, which is pretty well verified by experiment. Also, it doesn't explain
the increasing amount of energy tied up in *charge moving near c.

MY explanation is that when a charge accelerates between electrodes, it
generates a reverse field, which opposes and weakens the applied field.
(something like a back emf in vacuum) . Because of the limited speed at which
the reverse field can move, it forms a kind of 'bubble' around the charge and a
vast amount of energy is tied up in maintaining a reverse field bubble. The
maths apparently pretty well matches that of the 'relativistic mass increase'.

Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com/

Tom Roberts


but you overlook the simple fact that
instead of writing

F=gamma ma
you can exactly methematical write

F/Gamm = ma
**and mass m remains constant*!!

So what?

ie
it is a vry important PHYSICSL understanding
physics is first of all physical phenomena
and not mathematical phenomena !!
AND IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE
FOR ADVACE OF SCIENCE !!
if you dont get it than sorry for you
and all alike you
because such misunderstanding as your conclution
was leading to the wrong notion
and nearly a RELIGION that you dont like
in at the botom of your post
that false undertanding of yourse
was leading
TO THE STUPID PHYSICS NOTION
THAT PHOTONS CANNOT HAVE MASS
BECAUSE IF THEY HAD
THEY COULD NOT REACH c !!!!!!

Since nobody has a clue as to what constitutes 'mass', this kind of statement
is meaningless.

no tto mention 'curved space time ' etc etc

dont you get the importance of right physical interpretations!!???

such wrong interpretations lead to massless photons
and other stupidities like Higgs Bosond etc
that costed us a huge waist of human resources
and not least
waist of precious time !!
soMr Wilson just be aware for the burdain of **resposibiliy**
fo r flase interpretations of physical data !!!

Stop talking crap will you Porat.

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------





Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.

On Sep 4, 1:31*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:38:28 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 3, 3:24*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

I have seen in River wood is floating. And I find Wood always floats
slower than the water.

Try an experiment Have a water flow and put some wood. You will see
the wood travels slower than the water carrying it. And never faster
than the water carrying it. I think its due to viscosity of water.

Bye
Sanny

If you accelerate a boat by squirting it with a jet of water from the shore it
can never travel faster than the jet.

However, I analysed this situation mathematically and found that the velocity
curve is notthing like the one acquired using the 'gamma mass increase'
concept, which is pretty well verified by experiment. Also, it doesn't explain
the increasing amount of energy tied up in *charge moving near c.

MY explanation is that when a charge accelerates between electrodes, it
generates a reverse field, which opposes and weakens the applied field..
(something like a back emf in vacuum) . Because of the limited speed at which
the reverse field can move, it forms a kind of 'bubble' around the charge and a
vast amount of energy is tied up in maintaining a reverse field bubble.. The
maths apparently pretty well matches that of the 'relativistic mass increase'.

Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com/

Tom Roberts

but you overlook the simple fact that
instead of writing

F=gamma *ma
you can exactly methematical write

F/Gamm = ma
**and mass m remains constant*!!

So what?
----------------
you say crap

lets see where the crap lies :

i show you that we can put the formula

F=gamma m a
as
F/Gamam = m a
AND m REMAINS CONSTANT !!!

did you got it into your old crap mind ??

we are not dealing even with the** physical entity** that is called
mass

it is a mathematical ; argument of INTERPRETATION PHYSICS !!
(just another interpretation of the same formula that you agree with

you never in your crap life realized that there might be **two
legitimate
interpretations** of the same formula !!
**physical interpretations** not just mathematics )

if
F = gamma m a is
accepted by you than
F/Gamma = m a
should also be accepted by you
got it crackparroter idiot crook ??
who gave a crook like you a Phd degree??
a degree for f a ****en demagogue .

any tome when ever you are pushed to the corner
you will say crap ??
that what will make you a productive scientist

a REAL scientist must have some intellectual integrity as well
or maybe a ****en bump parasite ??

Y.P
-----------------------------




ie
it is a vry important *PHYSICSL * understanding
physics is first of all physical phenomena
and not *mathematical phenomena !!
AND IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE
FOR ADVACE OF SCIENCE !!
if you dont get it than sorry for you
and all *alike *you
because such misunderstanding as your conclution
was leading to the wrong notion
and nearly a RELIGION *that you dont like
in * *at the botom of your post
that false undertanding of yourse
was leading
TO THE STUPID PHYSICS NOTION
THAT PHOTONS CANNOT HAVE MASS
BECAUSE IF THEY HAD
THEY COULD NOT REACH c !!!!!!

Since nobody has a clue as to what constitutes 'mass', this kind of statement
is meaningless.

no tto mention *'curved space time ' etc etc

dont you get the importance of right physical interpretations!!???

such wrong interpretations lead to massless photons
and other stupidities * like Higgs Bosond etc
that costed us a huge waist of human resources
and not least
waist of precious time !!
soMr Wilson just be aware for the burdain of ***resposibiliy**
fo r * *flase interpretations of physical data !!!

Stop talking crap will you Porat.

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:01:58 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Sep 4, 1:31*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:38:28 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 3, 3:24*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

I have seen in River wood is floating. And I find Wood always floats
slower than the water.

Try an experiment Have a water flow and put some wood. You will see
the wood travels slower than the water carrying it. And never faster
than the water carrying it. I think its due to viscosity of water.

Bye
Sanny

If you accelerate a boat by squirting it with a jet of water from the shore it
can never travel faster than the jet.

However, I analysed this situation mathematically and found that the velocity
curve is notthing like the one acquired using the 'gamma mass increase'
concept, which is pretty well verified by experiment. Also, it doesn't explain
the increasing amount of energy tied up in *charge moving near c.

MY explanation is that when a charge accelerates between electrodes, it
generates a reverse field, which opposes and weakens the applied field.
(something like a back emf in vacuum) . Because of the limited speed at which
the reverse field can move, it forms a kind of 'bubble' around the charge and a
vast amount of energy is tied up in maintaining a reverse field bubble. The
maths apparently pretty well matches that of the 'relativistic mass increase'.

Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com/

Tom Roberts

but you overlook the simple fact that
instead of writing

F=gamma *ma
you can exactly methematical write

F/Gamm = ma
**and mass m remains constant*!!

So what?
----------------
you say crap

lets see where the crap lies :

i show you that we can put the formula

F=gamma m a
as
F/Gamam = m a
AND m REMAINS CONSTANT !!!

did you got it into your old crap mind ??

there is NO 'gamma' ....except in aether theories

we are not dealing even with the** physical entity** that is called
mass

it is a mathematical ; argument of INTERPRETATION PHYSICS !!
(just another interpretation of the same formula that you agree with

you never in your crap life realized that there might be **two
legitimate
interpretations** of the same formula !!
**physical interpretations** not just mathematics )

if
F = gamma m a is
accepted by you than
F/Gamma = m a
should also be accepted by you
got it crackparroter idiot crook ??
who gave a crook like you a Phd degree??
a degree for f a ****en demagogue .

there is no 'gamma....except in aether theories

any tome when ever you are pushed to the corner
you will say crap ??
that what will make you a productive scientist

a REAL scientist must have some intellectual integrity as well
or maybe a ****en bump parasite ??

Newton's correct equation is: a = F/m
That is NOT a definition of mass or force no matter how it is written.
Only an idiot would think it was.

Y.P
-----------------------------




ie
it is a vry important *PHYSICSL * understanding
physics is first of all physical phenomena
and not *mathematical phenomena !!
AND IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE
FOR ADVACE OF SCIENCE !!
if you dont get it than sorry for you
and all *alike *you
because such misunderstanding as your conclution
was leading to the wrong notion
and nearly a RELIGION *that you dont like
in * *at the botom of your post
that false undertanding of yourse
was leading
TO THE STUPID PHYSICS NOTION
THAT PHOTONS CANNOT HAVE MASS
BECAUSE IF THEY HAD
THEY COULD NOT REACH c !!!!!!

Since nobody has a clue as to what constitutes 'mass', this kind of statement
is meaningless.

no tto mention *'curved space time ' etc etc

dont you get the importance of right physical interpretations!!???

such wrong interpretations lead to massless photons
and other stupidities * like Higgs Bosond etc
that costed us a huge waist of human resources
and not least
waist of precious time !!
soMr Wilson just be aware for the burdain of ***resposibiliy**
fo r * *flase interpretations of physical data !!!

Stop talking crap will you Porat.

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.

On Sep 5, 1:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:01:58 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:31*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:38:28 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 3, 3:24*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

I have seen in River wood is floating. And I find Wood always floats
slower than the water.

Try an experiment Have a water flow and put some wood. You will see
the wood travels slower than the water carrying it. And never faster
than the water carrying it. I think its due to viscosity of water.

Bye
Sanny

If you accelerate a boat by squirting it with a jet of water from the shore it
can never travel faster than the jet.

However, I analysed this situation mathematically and found that the velocity
curve is notthing like the one acquired using the 'gamma mass increase'
concept, which is pretty well verified by experiment. Also, it doesn't explain
the increasing amount of energy tied up in *charge moving near c.

MY explanation is that when a charge accelerates between electrodes, it
generates a reverse field, which opposes and weakens the applied field.
(something like a back emf in vacuum) . Because of the limited speed at which
the reverse field can move, it forms a kind of 'bubble' around the charge and a
vast amount of energy is tied up in maintaining a reverse field bubble. The
maths apparently pretty well matches that of the 'relativistic mass increase'.

Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com/

Tom Roberts

but you overlook the simple fact that
instead of writing

F=gamma *ma
you can exactly methematical write

F/Gamm = ma
**and mass m remains constant*!!

So what?
----------------
you say crap

lets see where the crap lies :

i show you that we can put the formula

F=gamma m a
as
F/Gamam = m a
AND * * m * REMAINS CONSTANT !!!

did you got it into your old crap mind * ??

there is NO 'gamma' ....except in aether theories







we are not dealing even with the** physical entity** that is called
mass

it is a mathematical ; argument of INTERPRETATION PHYSICS !!
(just another interpretation of the same formula that you agree with

you never in your crap life *realized that there might be **two
legitimate
interpretations** of the same formula !!
**physical interpretations** not just mathematics * )

if
F = gamma m a *is
accepted by you than
F/Gamma = m a
should also be accepted by you
got it *crackparroter *idiot crook ??
who gave a crook like you *a Phd degree??
a degree * for * *f a ****en demagogue .

there is no 'gamma....except in aether theories
------------------
who told you that??

the gamma factor was the 'reason' for
the claim that no mass can reach c !!

wile v=c it becomes infinit !!
------------

any tome when ever you are pushed to * the corner
you will say * * *crap ??
that what will * make you *a productive scientist

a *REAL * scientist must have some intellectual integrity as well
or maybe a ****en * bump parasite ??

Newton's correct equation is: a = F/m

and why not
F=ma ?? as well
just because you say so ??!!

and why not
m=f/a as well??

just ebcause you dismiss it ??

do you thing that while you call another one
a fool based on the above mathematical
private interpretation of the formuls

it makes you a better impressive PHd??
do you think that being an assertive croock
willmake you less a demagogue croock

so Mr idiot PHD

F=ma can be exactly physically the same as

m=F/a as well

and for high velocity the gamma factor
is added as well
got it pompous moron ???!!

and it is the definition od mass
as well as definition of force
as the definition of acceleration .
a amthematical formula in physics
is not just one 'as you like it' definition

so that is something that a crackpotter
croock like you never thought about

keep well (and dont forget to take your pills )
Y.Porat
----------------------
That is NOT a definition of mass or force no matter how it is written.
Only an idiot would think it was.





Y.P
-----------------------------

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Sep 5, 1:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:01:58 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:31*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:38:28 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 3, 3:24*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

I have seen in River wood is floating. And I find Wood always floats
slower than the water.

Try an experiment Have a water flow and put some wood. You will see
the wood travels slower than the water carrying it. And never faster
than the water carrying it. I think its due to viscosity of water.

Bye
Sanny

If you accelerate a boat by squirting it with a jet of water from the shore it
can never travel faster than the jet.

However, I analysed this situation mathematically and found that the velocity
curve is notthing like the one acquired using the 'gamma mass increase'
concept, which is pretty well verified by experiment. Also, it doesn't explain
the increasing amount of energy tied up in *charge moving near c.

MY explanation is that when a charge accelerates between electrodes, it
generates a reverse field, which opposes and weakens the applied field.
(something like a back emf in vacuum) . Because of the limited speed at which
the reverse field can move, it forms a kind of 'bubble' around the charge and a
vast amount of energy is tied up in maintaining a reverse field bubble. The
maths apparently pretty well matches that of the 'relativistic mass increase'.

Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com/

Tom Roberts

but you overlook the simple fact that
instead of writing

F=gamma *ma
you can exactly methematical write

F/Gamm = ma
**and mass m remains constant*!!

So what?
----------------
you say crap

lets see where the crap lies :

i show you that we can put the formula

F=gamma m a
as
F/Gamam = m a
AND * * m * REMAINS CONSTANT !!!

did you got it into your old crap mind * ??

there is NO 'gamma' ....except in aether theories







we are not dealing even with the** physical entity** that is called
mass

it is a mathematical ; argument of INTERPRETATION PHYSICS !!
(just another interpretation of the same formula that you agree with

you never in your crap life *realized that there might be **two
legitimate
interpretations** of the same formula !!
**physical interpretations** not just mathematics * )

if
F = gamma m a *is
accepted by you than
F/Gamma = m a
should also be accepted by you
got it *crackparroter *idiot crook ??
who gave a crook like you *a Phd degree??
a degree * for * *f a ****en demagogue .

there is no 'gamma....except in aether theories
------------------
who told you that??

the gamma factor was the 'reason' for
the claim that no mass can reach c !!

wile v=c it becomes infinit !!
------------

any tome when ever you are pushed to * the corner
you will say * * *crap ??
that what will * make you *a productive scientist

a *REAL * scientist must have some intellectual integrity as well
or maybe a ****en * bump parasite ??

Newton's correct equation is: a = F/m

and why not
F=ma ?? as well
just because you say so ??!!

because 'a' is the dependent variable.


and why not
m=f/a as well??

just ebcause you dismiss it ??

do you thing that while you call another one
a fool based on the above mathematical
private interpretation of the formuls

it makes you a better impressive PHd??
do you think that being an assertive croock
willmake you less a demagogue croock

so Mr idiot PHD

F=ma can be exactly physically the same as

m=F/a as well

and for high velocity the gamma factor
is added as well
got it pompous moron ???!!

and it is the definition od mass
as well as definition of force
as the definition of acceleration .
a amthematical formula in physics
is not just one 'as you like it' definition

so that is something that a crackpotter
croock like you never thought about

keep well (and dont forget to take your pills )
Y.Porat

How does 'F=ma' describe a frictional force?



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.

On Sep 6, 1:43*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 5, 1:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:01:58 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 4, 1:31*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:38:28 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 3, 3:24*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

I have seen in River wood is floating. And I find Wood always floats
slower than the water.

Try an experiment Have a water flow and put some wood. You will see
the wood travels slower than the water carrying it. And never faster
than the water carrying it. I think its due to viscosity of water.

Bye
Sanny

If you accelerate a boat by squirting it with a jet of water from the shore it
can never travel faster than the jet.

However, I analysed this situation mathematically and found that the velocity
curve is notthing like the one acquired using the 'gamma mass increase'
concept, which is pretty well verified by experiment. Also, it doesn't explain
the increasing amount of energy tied up in *charge moving near c.

MY explanation is that when a charge accelerates between electrodes, it
generates a reverse field, which opposes and weakens the applied field.
(something like a back emf in vacuum) . Because of the limited speed at which
the reverse field can move, it forms a kind of 'bubble' around the charge and a
vast amount of energy is tied up in maintaining a reverse field bubble. The
maths apparently pretty well matches that of the 'relativistic mass increase'.

Be Intelligent:http://www.GetClub.com/

Tom Roberts

but you overlook the simple fact that
instead of writing

F=gamma *ma
you can exactly methematical write

F/Gamm = ma
**and mass m remains constant*!!

So what?
----------------
you say crap

lets see where the crap lies :

i show you that we can put the formula

F=gamma m a
as
F/Gamam = m a
AND * * m * REMAINS CONSTANT !!!

did you got it into your old crap mind * ??

there is NO 'gamma' ....except in aether theories

we are not dealing even with the** physical entity** that is called
mass

it is a mathematical ; argument of INTERPRETATION PHYSICS !!
(just another interpretation of the same formula that you agree with

you never in your crap life *realized that there might be **two
legitimate
interpretations** of the same formula !!
**physical interpretations** not just mathematics * )

if
F = gamma m a *is
accepted by you than
F/Gamma = m a
should also be accepted by you
got it *crackparroter *idiot crook ??
who gave a crook like you *a Phd degree??
a degree * for * *f a ****en demagogue .

there is no 'gamma....except in aether theories
------------------
who told you that??

the gamma factor was the 'reason' for
the claim that no mass can reach c !!

wile v=c it becomes infinit !!
------------

any tome when ever you are pushed to * the corner
you will say * * *crap ??
that what will * make you *a productive scientist

a *REAL * scientist must have some intellectual integrity as well
or maybe a ****en * bump parasite ??

Newton's correct equation is: a = F/m

and why not
F=ma ?? as well
just because you say so ??!!

because 'a' is the dependent variable.
-----------------------
so what??

v velocity is also a dependable variable so
it cannot be defined as a physical entity ?? ??
anyway
any definition in our culture is done by using
other 'known' or acceptable to be known --terms

you cannot define anything by ITSELF !!!
we were dealing with mass
and the question is not
if we define it by otherterms or not
the question is whether we define it CORRECT!!!
---------------
so waht i did
i took a formula that even you acccept
and interpretated it differently physically
you know why ??
because you as well INTERPRETED IT
ARBITRARY BY YOUR INTERPREATTION
ans your interpretation is no better
than mine
actaualy mine i s less arbitrary
but that is not for you or me to decide
it is for other peole to decide which is more reasobable
and more compatible with a former accepted base
----

so again F is not

F=Gamma m a
but
F/Gamma = m a
and m remains constant

AS IT IS IN MACROCOSM
IT IS IN CHEMISTRY
etc etc
there was no reason at all even to start thinking
otherwise
now Dr genius
if you really want to unserstand how that harmful mistake started;

it started with a soopid extrapolation people
of the idea that
NO MASS CAN REACH c since
we know experimentally that
it becomes more and more difficult to add acceleration
to mass

but no one considered thjat
(THE PHOTON ANS PHOTON MASS IS A LIMIT CASE
EVENAMTHEMATICALLY
and you cannot extrapolate endlessly !!!!
THATS ALL!!

the experimental fact DOES NOT TELL US** WHY**
IT IS MORE DIFFICULT
TO ADD ACCELERATION TO MASS
IT IS SOME PEOPLE *** INTERPRETATION***
FOR THAT FACT !!
and a wrong interpretation because they ddint notice
that right under their nose there is a much less problematic
interpretation
got it??
it is an interpretation of a fact not a fact
and a great genius like PHD Wilson
should be able to make a difference between
experimental facts and **interpretations of facts !!!**

so
the form :

F'gamma = m a
is less problematic(less contradictory to basics ) than the common
one
-------------
ps
now from now on please be careful using the word 'crap'
if you consider yourself a responsible scientist !!
2
i am not a PHD (:-)
i am something else ....just a humble Bsc
but a Bsc that did some more work beyond the Bsc
see my link
as published here before ........
that might be even a little more than a Phd .....
ATB
Y.Porat


and why not
m=f/a * as well??

just ebcause you dismiss it ??

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:10:18 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Sep 6, 1:43*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 5, 1:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

there is no 'gamma....except in aether theories
------------------
who told you that??

the gamma factor was the 'reason' for
the claim that no mass can reach c !!

wile v=c it becomes infinit !!
------------

any tome when ever you are pushed to * the corner
you will say * * *crap ??
that what will * make you *a productive scientist

a *REAL * scientist must have some intellectual integrity as well
or maybe a ****en * bump parasite ??

Newton's correct equation is: a = F/m

and why not
F=ma ?? as well
just because you say so ??!!

because 'a' is the dependent variable.
-----------------------
so what??

v velocity is also a dependable variable so
it cannot be defined as a physical entity ?? ??
anyway
any definition in our culture is done by using
other 'known' or acceptable to be known --terms

you cannot define anything by ITSELF !!!
we were dealing with mass
and the question is not
if we define it by otherterms or not
the question is whether we define it CORRECT!!!
---------------
so waht i did
i took a formula that even you acccept
and interpretated it differently physically
you know why ??
because you as well INTERPRETED IT
ARBITRARY BY YOUR INTERPREATTION
ans your interpretation is no better
than mine
actaualy mine i s less arbitrary
but that is not for you or me to decide
it is for other peole to decide which is more reasobable
and more compatible with a former accepted base
----

so again F is not

F=Gamma m a
but
F/Gamma = m a
and m remains constant

AS IT IS IN MACROCOSM
IT IS IN CHEMISTRY
etc etc
there was no reason at all even to start thinking
otherwise
now Dr genius
if you really want to unserstand how that harmful mistake started;

it started with a soopid extrapolation people
of the idea that
NO MASS CAN REACH c since
we know experimentally that
it becomes more and more difficult to add acceleration
to mass

In an accelerator, yes. That's because of the 'Wilson reverse field bubble'.
Cosmic rays move at c wrt earth. So do the muons they produce.

but no one considered thjat
(THE PHOTON ANS PHOTON MASS IS A LIMIT CASE
EVENAMTHEMATICALLY
and you cannot extrapolate endlessly !!!!
THATS ALL!!

the experimental fact DOES NOT TELL US** WHY**
IT IS MORE DIFFICULT
TO ADD ACCELERATION TO MASS
IT IS SOME PEOPLE *** INTERPRETATION***
FOR THAT FACT !!
and a wrong interpretation because they ddint notice
that right under their nose there is a much less problematic
interpretation
got it??
it is an interpretation of a fact not a fact
and a great genius like PHD Wilson
should be able to make a difference between
experimental facts and **interpretations of facts !!!**

so
the form :

F'gamma = m a
is less problematic(less contradictory to basics ) than the common
one

Take Ohm's law.
The correct version is I = V/R.
Yet we also know by experiment that if a currect of I is flowing through a
resistance, there will exist a voltage drop of V = RI across that resistance.

y point, Porat, is that such twistiing of equations cannot bte used as
definitions.

A force cannot be defined by the math relationship: mass x acceleration.
A force exists in its own right whether acceleration results or not.

-------------
ps
now from now on please be careful using the word 'crap'
if you consider yourself a responsible scientist !!
2
i am not a PHD (:-)
i am something else ....just a humble Bsc
but a Bsc that did some more work beyond the Bsc
see my link
as published here before ........
that might be even a little more than a Phd .....
ATB

I think you would be better off getting a Ba in English spelling and grammer so
we might be able to understand what you are trying to say.

Y.Porat


and why not
m=f/a * as well??

just ebcause you dismiss it ??





Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.

On Sep 7, 2:14*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 23:10:18 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 6, 1:43*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 5, 1:45*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
there is no 'gamma....except in aether theories
------------------
who told you that??

the gamma factor was the 'reason' for
the claim that no mass can reach c !!

wile v=c it becomes infinit !!
------------

any tome when ever you are pushed to * the corner
you will say * * *crap ??
that what will * make you *a productive scientist

a *REAL * scientist must have some intellectual integrity as well
or maybe a ****en * bump parasite ??

Newton's correct equation is: a = F/m

and why not
F=ma ?? as well
just because you say so ??!!

because 'a' is the dependent variable.
-----------------------
so what??

v velocity * *is also * *a dependable variable so
it cannot be defined * as a physical entity ?? ??
anyway
any definition in our culture is done by using
other 'known' or acceptable to be known --terms

you cannot define anything * by ITSELF * !!!
we were dealing with mass
and the question is not
if we define it by otherterms or not
the question is whether we define it *CORRECT!!!
---------------
so waht i did
i took a formula that even you acccept
and interpretated it differently physically
you know why ??
because you as well INTERPRETED *IT
ARBITRARY * *BY * YOUR INTERPREATTION
ans your interpretation is no better
than mine
actaualy mine i s * less arbitrary
but that is not for you or me to decide
it is for other peole to decide which * is more reasobable
and more compatible with *a *former accepted base
----

so again * F is not

F=Gamma *m a
but
F/Gamma = m a
and m remains constant

AS IT IS IN MACROCOSM
IT IS IN CHEMISTRY
etc etc
there was no reason at all even to start thinking
otherwise
now Dr genius
if you really want to unserstand how that harmful mistake started;

it started with a soopid extrapolation *people
of the idea that
NO MASS CAN REACH c * since
we know experimentally that
it becomes more and more difficult to add acceleration
to mass

In an accelerator, yes. That's because of the 'Wilson reverse field bubble'.
Cosmic rays move at c wrt earth. So do the muons they produce.





but no one considered thjat
(THE PHOTON ANS PHOTON MASS IS A LIMIT CASE
EVENAMTHEMATICALLY
and you cannot extrapolate endlessly *!!!!
THATS ALL!!

the experimental fact *DOES NOT TELL US** WHY**
IT IS MORE DIFFICULT
TO ADD ACCELERATION TO MASS
IT IS SOME * PEOPLE **** INTERPRETATION***
FOR THAT FACT !!
and a wrong interpretation because * they ddint notice
that right under their nose there is a much * less problematic
interpretation
got it??
it is an * interpretation of a fact not a fact
and a great genius like PHD Wilson
should be able to make a difference between
experimental facts * * and * ***interpretations of facts !!!**

so
the form :

F'gamma = m *a
is less problematic(less contradictory to basics ) than the common
one

Take Ohm's law.
The correct version is I = V/R.
Yet we also know by experiment that if a currect of I is flowing through a
resistance, there will exist a voltage drop of V = RI across that resistance.

y point, Porat, is that such twistiing of equations cannot bte used as
definitions.

A force cannot be defined by the math relationship: mass x acceleration.
A force exists in its own right whether acceleration results or not.

-------------
ps
now * * from now on please *be careful using the word 'crap'
if you consider yourself a responsible * scientist *!!
2
i am not a PHD * * *(:-)
i am something else ....just a *humble * *Bsc
but a Bsc that did some more work beyond the Bsc
see my link
as published here before ........
that might *be even a little more than a Phd *.....
ATB

I think you would be better off getting a Ba in English spelling and grammer so
we might be able to understand what you are trying to say.

Y.Porat

and why not
m=f/a * as well??

just ebcause you dismiss it ??

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
i am waisting my time on you

if youinsist on
i= V/R
and not for instance

V=I R
there is a difference between how it was
presented and found histirically
and how it can be useled **corerectly* later
just by another mathematical presetation
the maoin point is the differnce and undersatnding between
EXPERIMENTAL FACTS-
AND INTERPRETATIONS*** OF EXPERIMENTAL FACTS

so if after all your years in physics
you still didnt get it
sorry for your precious time
and my preciuos time !!

may be better be a teacher of histiry
not a teacher of physics

keep well
Y.Porat
---------------------------