John Schoenfeld wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

John Schoenfeld wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote in message ...


John Schoenfeld wrote:


Sam Wormley wrote in message ...


John Schoenfeld wrote:


SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:

F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a


Oh man, you broke my bull**** meter!

It simplifies to

F = (paY)/(bc)

which can be rewritten as

F = y^2m0a which is similar to the well known result of F = y^3m0a,
but that would requre you to know some physics which you clearly
don't.


Relativistic Force is indeed F_x = m_o gamma^3 a_x
F_y = m_o gamma a_y
F_z = m_o gamma a_z

So what the hell is your F = y^2m0a ?


The "SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE".

Nice. Now present evidence that the formulas of SR above are wrong and
your formula is right, please.

You could start by reading the introductory document on accelerators I
gave you a link to.


All I can provide you at this point is a derivation which you and the
rest have not been able to fault.

Explain why your formulas contradict the ones of SR given above.



Bye,
Bjoern

"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote:
Dear John Schoenfeld:

"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
om...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote
in
message news:Vbqoc.118739$Jy3.11513@fed1read03...
...
I thought you said you were leaving this group. Why the about
face?

Asperger's syndrome. He can't help it.

You don't actually believe in all that hocus pocus, do you? Half those
disorders are mere inventions to keep the unemployabe (like you)
employed. Go get a job!

I'm not the one wasting time rederiving 300+ year old equations, and
doing
it poorly.

Why don't you do your credibility a favour and state:
1. A 300+ year old equation which I have derived.
2. An error in my derivation.


The disorders describe a repeatable set of behaviours. Such actions are
as
necessary as describing the behaviours of the various groups of
subatomic
particles.

Judging from your babblings, we can take it you have a disorder of
your own. I'm betting on "Triplo-X aneuploidy".

And I am employable, and currently have a job as an engineer.

There are no jobs for "Engineers". What type of engineer?

I suggest that if you are here to learn,

There's not much to learn from here, I think that goes without saying
(bar the astounding truths I post).

because you cannot afford formal
classes,

So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled class-based
attacks. What's the point in paying $200k for an education I can get
for free at the local library/internet, David?

perhaps you should run your "mouth" less making statements,

You should be thanking me for allowing you the privilege of witnessing
the astounding truths I post, instead you are an insolent crackpot.

and
more about asking questions. Of course, that assumes you *can* help
yourself...

Thanks for the tip, now where is the error?

David A. Smith

So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled
class-based attacks. What's the point in paying $200k
for an education I can get for free at the local
library/internet, David?

In regards to your quotation from "Good Will Hunting" there are very few of
us with the ability to simply read and absorb written factual information.
Many people require a variety of sources for proper absorption and
retention. You have clearly shown, countless times in this thread alone,
that you completely ignore the statements of others. If you can't read or
choose to ignore what others have written, how can you expect us to disprove
or verify your equation?



Michael King

Dear Mike King:

"Mike King" wrote in message
news:8rVpc.503477$Ig.105044@pd7tw2no...

"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
om...
....
Thanks for the tip, now where is the error?

So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled
class-based attacks. What's the point in paying $200k
for an education I can get for free at the local
library/internet, David?

In regards to your quotation from "Good Will Hunting" there are very few
of
us with the ability to simply read and absorb written factual
information.
Many people require a variety of sources for proper absorption and
retention. You have clearly shown, countless times in this thread alone,
that you completely ignore the statements of others. If you can't read or
choose to ignore what others have written, how can you expect us to
disprove
or verify your equation?

And the blowhard nymshifts into yet another name... Since "John
Schoenfeld" couldn't actually reply without lying, a new sock puppet is
created. How sad.

plonk

David A. Smith

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
John Schoenfeld wrote:
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
.com...

SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:

F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a

This is the relativistic mass-varying force.

PROOF:
let y = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
let B = beta = v/c

Consider relativistic mass as a function of v.
m(v) = y(v) m0

Since
y(v) = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= 1 / sqrt(u) { where u(v) = 1 - v^2/c^2 }
= u^-1/2
Then,
dy/dv = -1/2 u^-3/2 (du/dv)
= -1/2 u^-3/2 2v/c^2
= v/[c^2 sqrt(u^3)]
= v/c^2 y^3 { since 1/sqrt(u^3) = y^3 }
= y^3 B/c

Consider the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity,
m(v) = y(v) m0
dm/dv = d(y(v) m0)/dv
= m0 (dy/dv)
= m0 y^3 B/c

Since relativistic mass is velocity-dependent, the mass-varying

force

law is derived as:
F = dp/dt
= d(m(v) v)/dt
= m(v) (dv/dt) + v (dm/dv)(dv/dt)
= (m(v) + v dm/dv)a

Since the relativistic mass rate of change w.r.t velocity is,
dm/dv = m0 y^3 B/c

Then the relativistic mass-varying force (SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE)
is,
F = (m(v) + y^3 B/c m0 v)a

All of that is pure horse dung.


Had you competence you would realize that the SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN
FORCE reduces to F = (ypa)/(Bc) or F = y^2m0a and is consist with SR
by design (dm=dv = (dym)/dv).

Err, SR gives another relation between force and acceleration than yours
here, if you didn't notice - so obviously your result is *not*
consistent with SR.

I wonder, among other things, when he will wake up that since v is a vector
dv/dv is not even defined so that the chain rule is inapplicable.

Velocity is a tensor, not a vector. dm/dv is perfectly valid when
considering mass as rank-0 velocity dependent - that is - it varies
with speed irrespective of direction. Coincidently, this is the case
for special relativity.

Thanks
Bill




All particle accelerators were designed by utilising only one
equation, namely

dp/dt = e(E + v x B)


Is F = y^2m0a inconsistent with this?

F = y^2 m0 a is inconsistent with
F_x = m_o gamma3 a_x, F_y = m_o gamma a_y, F_z = m_o gamma a_z
(for a velocity vector in x-direction)


No particle accelerator has ever been built which has not worked
acording to specifications anywhere in the world.


Is this your proof that my equation is wrong?

Essentially, yes.



Accelerators have
been built in which the particles move a speeds of approximately
{1-10^-11) c.
The design of the ISR was based on this equation. It was possible to
keep two proton beams on track to within a couple of millimetres for a
distance of 6 light months in that machine. So, not to be too polite
about it, to hell with your nonsense.


Is this your proof then?

Essentially, yes.


Bye,
Bjoern

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
John Schoenfeld wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote in message
...

John Schoenfeld wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote in message
...

John Schoenfeld wrote:

SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN RELATIVISTIC FORCE:

F = (m + y^3 B/c m0 v)a


Oh man, you broke my bull**** meter!

It simplifies to

F = (paY)/(bc)

which can be rewritten as

F = y^2m0a which is similar to the well known result of F = y^3m0a,
but that would requre you to know some physics which you clearly
don't.


Relativistic Force is indeed F_x = m_o gamma^3 a_x
F_y = m_o gamma a_y
F_z = m_o gamma a_z

So what the hell is your F = y^2m0a ?


The "SCHOENFELD-EINSTEIN FORCE".

Nice. Now present evidence that the formulas of SR above are wrong and
your formula is right, please.

You could start by reading the introductory document on accelerators I
gave you a link to.

All I can provide you at this point is a derivation which you and the
rest have not been able to fault.

You have been given numerous faults eg the objection that you can not apply
the chain rule to a vector function dv/dv has no meaning. And if you
counter by saying that v is not a vector then you face the issue of in SR
the acceleration and force are not necessarily in the same direction.

Bill

Lies. Mass is rank-0 velocity dependent.



Bye,
Bjoern

John Schoenfeld wrote:
[snip]
Nothing.

Hey Schoenfeld, What do you do if a blonde throws a pin at you?


Your ignorance, incompetence, and psychosis are not of interest to the
world at large. Quite the contrary. You are not even an interesting
laughingstock.

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

RUN!!! - she's got a live grenade in her mouth.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(The parity Eotvos experiment is queued)

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
All I can provide you at this point is a derivation which you and the
rest have not been able to fault.

Explain why your formulas contradict the ones of SR given above.

They don't.




Bye,
Bjoern

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in message news:xvVpc.56684$iy5.25580@okepread05...
Dear Mike King:

"Mike King" wrote in message
news:8rVpc.503477$Ig.105044@pd7tw2no...

"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
om...
...
Thanks for the tip, now where is the error?

So when all else fails David A Smith resorts to befuddled
class-based attacks. What's the point in paying $200k
for an education I can get for free at the local
library/internet, David?

In regards to your quotation from "Good Will Hunting" there are very few
of
us with the ability to simply read and absorb written factual
information.
Many people require a variety of sources for proper absorption and
retention. You have clearly shown, countless times in this thread alone,
that you completely ignore the statements of others. If you can't read or
choose to ignore what others have written, how can you expect us to
disprove
or verify your equation?

And the blowhard nymshifts into yet another name... Since "John
Schoenfeld" couldn't actually reply without lying, a new sock puppet is
created. How sad.

And where did I lie?

plonk

David A. Smith

"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
om...
....
plonk

Another reason to update my killfile.

David A. Smith