Re: ? ? ?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : Re: ? ? ?
De : relativity (at) *nospam* paulba.no (Paul B. Andersen)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 02. May 2024, 18:55:55
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v10ju0$2t378$1@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Den 01.05.2024 14:20, skrev Richard Hachel:
Le 01/05/2024 à 13:57, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
 
You claim that the protons in the LHC are moving
with the speed  6927⋅c, and you claim that each proton
is moving around the ring 78 million times per second.
 The physicist who designed and run the LHC know that
the machinery (RF-cavites, bending and focusing magnets)
can only work if the speed of the protons is slightly
less than c, which means that each proton is moving around
the ring  ≈ 11.25 thousand times per second.
 Do you still insist that you are right, and the physicists
that designed and run the LHC are ignorant of how the LHC
really works?

 Absolutly.
 

I bet you won't answer this question!
The reason why I thought you wouldn't answer the question
was that an affirmative answer would demonstrate that you are
irrational and are claiming what any sane person must know is wrong.
Since you don't understand that ...

And?
If you want to know the observation of things, you must use the notion of observable speed, using the distance in the laboratory and the time measured by the desynchronized clocks in the laboratory.
If you want to know the reality of things, you have to take the distance traveled in the laboratory, and the correctly measured time which is that of the proton (he only has a watch). It's very unintuitive, I know. But things are like that.
It's so counter-intuitive that if I ask the particle to make a complete revolution, it starts from A and returns to A, we'll say to ourselves: "It's okay, I only have one watch!". And yet we make a mistake, it is the same physical watch, of course, but it is no different from two watches placed at A and at B, and whose straight line would have been curved so that B coincides at A.
 R.H.
 
Good grief!
You are too irrational and nonsensical to qualify as a crank.
You are only a pathetic megalomaniac babbling utter nonsense.
Sorry, I won't waste more time on you.
<plonk>
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

Date Sujet#  Auteur
26 Apr 24 * Re: ? ? ?38Thomas Heger
26 Apr 24 +* Re: ? ? ?34Python
26 Apr 24 i`* Re: ? ? ?33Richard Hachel
27 Apr 24 i +* Re: ? ? ?12Mikko
27 Apr 24 i i+* Re: ? ? ?8Python
27 Apr 24 i ii`* Re: ? ? ?7Maciej Wozniak
27 Apr 24 i ii `* Re: ? ? ?6Python
27 Apr 24 i ii  `* Re: ? ? ?5Maciej Wozniak
27 Apr 24 i ii   +* Re: ? ? ?3Python
27 Apr 24 i ii   i`* Re: ? ? ?2Python
27 Apr 24 i ii   i `- Re: ? ? ?1Maciej Wozniak
28 Apr 24 i ii   `- Re: ? ? ?1Richard Hachel
27 Apr 24 i i`* Re: ? ? ?3Richard Hachel
27 Apr 24 i i `* Re: ? ? ?2Python
27 Apr 24 i i  `- Re: ? ? ?1Athel Cornish-Bowden
27 Apr 24 i `* Re: ? ? ?20Python
27 Apr 24 i  `* Re: ? ? ?19Richard Hachel
27 Apr 24 i   `* Re: ? ? ?18Python
27 Apr 24 i    `* Re: ? ? ?17Richard Hachel
28 Apr 24 i     +- Re: ? ? ?1Python
28 Apr 24 i     `* Re: ? ? ?15Paul B. Andersen
28 Apr 24 i      `* Re: ? ? ?14Richard Hachel
29 Apr 24 i       +* Re: ? ? ?2Mikko
29 Apr 24 i       i`- Re: ? ? ?1Richard Hachel
29 Apr 24 i       `* Re: ? ? ?11Paul B. Andersen
29 Apr 24 i        `* Re: ? ? ?10Richard Hachel
30 Apr 24 i         `* Re: ? ? ?9Paul B. Andersen
30 Apr 24 i          `* Re: ? ? ?8Richard Hachel
30 Apr 24 i           +- Re: ? ? ?1Pásztor Borbély Mészáros
1 May 24 i           +* Re: ? ? ?2Volney
1 May 24 i           i`- Re: ? ? ?1Richard Hachel
1 May 24 i           `* Re: ? ? ?4Paul B. Andersen
1 May 24 i            `* Re: ? ? ?3Richard Hachel
2 May 24 i             `* Re: ? ? ?2Paul B. Andersen
3 May 24 i              `- Re: ? ? ?1Pargu Pálinkás
26 Apr 24 `* Re: ? ? ?3Maciej Wozniak
26 Apr 24  +- Re: ? ? ?1Python
26 Apr 24  `- Re: ? ? ?1Carmen Ou-Yang

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal