| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » The Flaw in High Energy Physics |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Putes |
 Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The Flaw in High Energy Physics
When it comes to particle physics a question arises. High Energy
experiments have led to a plethora of short-lived high-energy products. As
an example, a proton and an anti-proton, each having a mass equivalent
energy of 1 GEV are accelerated to a velocity so close to that of light so
that they each contain kinetic energy of hundreds of GEV. These particles
are then induced to collide and, in so doing, produce short lived
high-energy products having observable mass equivalent energies of hundreds
of GEV. Where did the energy they represent come from?
A:- The energy certainly wasn't in the original particles, their rest
mass indicates that their total energy was about 2 GEV.
B:- The only source of the excess energy represented by the collision
products is the kinetic energy of the impacting protons. The observed total
energy after the collision never seems to be reported as exceeding the input
energy. If the excess energy was hidden in the original protons and did not
come from their kinetic energy, then where did the kinetic energy go?
C:- Experiment indicates that electrons, and the quarks that make up
protons and neutrons have no solid structure down to the observation limit
of 10^-18 meters, as indeed they cannot have. The more rest mass energy a
particle has, the smaller it is. If quarks contained smaller particles, the
rest mass of those smaller particles would be greater than the rest mass of
the quark and the proton or neutron would be more massive than it is. On the
other hand, if particles making up the quark were less massive than the
quark they would also be larger and would not fit within the nucleon.
Rather than accept the fact that these particles contain no structure,
theoreticians have resorted to Superstring Theory that asserts that reality
consists of curled higher order dimensions having a radius 20 orders of
magnitude smaller than the nucleon (a nice choice of scale since their
observation is not likely to ever be possible). At this scale level, the
combination of Quantum Theory and General Relativity is asserted to cause
space to be a frothy foam. Unfortunately physicists would rather accept such
a concept than accept the idea that there is an error in General Relativity,
after all the quasi-religious "Faith" must not be challenged. Once the error
is admitted and the necessary corrections made, the merging of the two
theories becomes obvious. The need for the activity at 10^-34 meters
vanishes and space becomes smooth.
Everything really does become much simpler when one follows the rules
of evidence in Science as well it is done in other activities and recognize
that it is necessary to consider the effects of possible changes in the size
of the units of measurement used by instruments produced by a change in
reference frame in addition to the results of those measurements. When one
takes this step an entirely different view of reality results. This view of
reality is much more straightforward and is capable of being understood by
the average man since the operation of its mechanisms are clear.
The disturbing part of the present process is that the next generation
of scientists is having their minds destroyed by being indoctrinated into
the "True Faith".
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/postinglog.htm
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Franz Heymann |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Putes" <putes@isp.com> wrote in message
news:d01vnr$g9$1@news.chatlink.com...
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]The Flaw in High Energy Physics
When it comes to particle physics a question arises. High
Energy
experiments have led to a plethora of short-lived high-energy
products. As
an example, a proton and an anti-proton, each having a mass
equivalent
energy of 1 GEV are accelerated to a velocity so close to that of
light so
that they each contain kinetic energy of hundreds of GEV.
[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
Which accelerator is it which accelerates protons and antiprotons?
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]These particles
are then induced to collide and, in so doing, produce short lived
high-energy products having observable mass equivalent energies of
hundreds
of GEV. Where did the energy they represent come from?
[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
From the kinetic energies of the incident particles.
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]A:- The energy certainly wasn't in the original particles,
their rest
mass indicates that their total energy was about 2 GEV.
[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
The incident particles were not at rest. You yourself used the words
"they each contain kinetic energy of hundreds of GEV"
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]B:- The only source of the excess energy represented by the
collision
products is the kinetic energy of the impacting protons.
[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
Yes
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]The observed total
energy after the collision never seems to be reported as exceeding
the input
energy.
[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
That is because it never does.
One of the many things which is done during the anaylsis of an event
is to make use of the laws of energy and momentum conservation in
order to help understand the event.
If the excess energy was hidden in the original protons and did not
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]come from their kinetic energy, then where did the kinetic energy
go?[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
But it *did* come from the energies of the incident protons.
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]C:- Experiment indicates that electrons, and the quarks that
make up
protons and neutrons have no solid structure down to the observation
limit
of 10^-18 meters, as indeed they cannot have.
[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
You are wrong on both counts.
The upper limit on the electron charge radius is 2.8 * 10^-19 metres
(to the usual 95% confidence level).
The charge radii of the quarks have not been measured yet (unless you
are party to later information than I have)
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]The more rest mass energy a
particle has, the smaller it is.
[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
No.
The proton is approximately 2000 times as heavy as the electron, and
its radius is at least 4 orders of magnitude larger than that of the
electron
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]If quarks contained smaller particles, the
rest mass of those smaller particles would be greater than the rest
mass of
the quark and the proton or neutron would be more massive than it
is.[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
No. There is no evidence of any kind for a ststement like that.
[quote:6ed31bbfe3]On the
other hand, if particles making up the quark were less massive than
the
quark they would also be larger and would not fit within the
nucleon.[/quote:6ed31bbfe3]
No. For the same reason as I gave you just above here.
[snip]
The rest of your screed was at least as crap ridden as the part I
retained.
You are a troll. You have trailed
--
Franz
"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact."
T.H. Huxley this horse dung many times before in thsi ng. How about
giving it a miss, since your errors are so blatant that you will not
be fooling anybody at all. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| GR_GR |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Putes wrote:
[quote:dca1759834]The Flaw in High Energy Physics
[/quote:dca1759834]
Quit changing your name so I can filter you once and for all, jerk.
---plonk--- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Eric Gisse |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[snip]
Finally kicked off of AOL, I see. How many isps have you gone through? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:24 am
|
|