A small problem for legendary JamesR on Relativity

You are talking bullshit not fact. You know nothing but believe you do. Until you actually test the prediction for the specific case (which is different than one of a particle accelerator) you have no knowledge. Your assumption that particle accelerator data applies to any motion and acceleration is simply unjustified bullshit.

This statement shows your duplicity of postions. You first say you do not know, then conclude by saying I am wrong. You cannot claim I am wrong and at the same time claim you do not know. Hmmmm. Which is it.

1 - We are not addressing Newtonian physics we are addressing the concept of Relativity.

2 - We have also just been through Newtonian calculation's in Pete's work which showed that basically the non-linear transfer of energy comes from sources other than the input. In the Pete's case it was a runner. In this case it is a car. Wake up. If Pete's runner doesn't need to supply the added energy to accelerate to the total kinetic energy of the new velocity neither does the car. They are the same case.

We are not considering E=mc^2 change in mass from a Newtonian view, we are discussing acceleration in cases involving gamma of Relativity. Please try to stay on topic and not mix apples and oranges.

The energy hasn't vanished dipshit. It remains in space behind the particle (stored) simular to an EM field around a coil. Just as the EM field collapses back into the coil and gives a large pulse of power the same principle occurs when you attempt to slow the particle. The energy returns to the particle (catches up) and gives it a major push which makes its momentum appear to have been due to an increase in its mass but while traveling through space there was no actual increase in mass, nor an increase in its gravity. That is why particles in a beam moving near the speed of light show no gravitational increase to objects at relative rest.

Pushing one car with another car that has a finite speed limit means you can not push the car any faster than that speed limit regardless of how much horsepower you have in the pushing vehicle. But try to apply the brakes in the car being pushed and the added horspower becomes quite evident.

My view is consistant with obervation yours is not.

The point is constant horspower produces acceleration in a normal fashion and not one subjected to gamma. That is the issue, none other. Don't make claims that are not germain to the issue.

You have no logic. You are a mere tape recorder playing the party line without any independant thought capacity. My view has remained constant your allegation is just as false as your conclusions.

You have explained nothing other than your desire to think you are one up. You are not.

Not from you certainly. You are totally screwed up. You do not and cannot support your declarations by anything other than shear faith and distortion of common logic.

Pure bullshit. I have infact designed nuclear fission and fusion reactors. I understand NO physics?. LOL.

Nobody has ever accelerated the car relative to its own referance frame idiot. This shows your complete lack of understanding and/or deliberate distortion and fabrication - i.e. habit of lying in your discussions and then agrueing against your own fabrications.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think you're drawing conclusions from that scenario that aren't warranted, Mac.

Let's explore what you're thinking...

It's clearly established that when I (100kg) accelerate to from 0 to 10m/s relative to the large heavy thing I'm standing on (train, Earth, spaceship, whatever), I burn 5kJ, right?

So, how much energy did I burn to reach 5m/s?
How much did I burn to go from 5m/s to 10m/s?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The difference now, of course, is that we're not shifting reference frames.

We're working in one reference frame, and calculating solely the energy that I burn to work up that sweat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The point was and remains that you did not burn enough J to account for the 20,000J increase in the kinetic energy of the final velocity; which relates to the acieved velocity after acceleration due to the input energy by the runner.

 

You switch frames when you calculated the kinetic energy at 30 m/s. That was the change in velocity achieved by the runner's input energy in a frame of the train moving which showed an increase of kinetic energy greater than the runners inut energy (horspower of my car).

That directly relates to my Quasar case. The car does not need to supply more horsepower to achieved the accleration final velocity of the other frame; hence frames did not affect the local rate of energy consumption, just as frames do not affect the rate of time flow.

These scenarios actually support my view.

 

Work with me, Mac. This question is important. Please don't avoid it.

In the simple case of a single, obvious reference frame - say a running track - I burn 5kJ to reach 10m/s, right? (assuming I have a mass of 100kg)

How much energy do I burn to reach 5m/s?
How much do I burn to get from 5m/s to 10m/s?

 

0-5m/s = 1,250J

at 10m/s you have 5,000 J

from 5m/s to 10m/s you required 3,750 J

But we were talking about the affect of external referance frames.

Suppose in this case I only accelerate from 0 - 5 m/s but I am on your train traveling at 5m/s.

In this case I gain 3,750J in the frame of an observer standing along side the tracks, but only expended 1,250J (basically) to get there. That is the issue.

 

Hahahahahaha, funny. This is Pete's task.

 

What evidence do you have indicating that only particles in the accelerator harder to accelerate when they move faster? Yours was just your fabricated theory, MacM's silly relativity. If you smart, you would see that I have not yet mentioned anything about SR or attempted to apply data from particle accelerator.

This was just because of your dumbness. I said I didn't know if you ever stated that "constant horsepower produces constant acceleration", since I am not interested to read all your bullshit. However, I KNOW from the way you presented your ill-formed argument on this issue, you thought that "constant horsepower produces constant acceleration"... and for this you are wrong. Please watch, I have not made any reference to SR as even from the context of Newtonian mechanics "constant power doesn't produce constant acceleration". Since you still arguing about it, it is obvious, you didn't even understand this. My bad english again, huh? It was not, old boy...it was your incapability to draw conclusion from a set of simple concepts, which I notice was generally your problem that made you this stubborn.

If you unable to understand the simple non-relativistic case, what's the point going into relativistic case. That would be a complete waste of time.

I gave you a slightly difference approach with respect to you wrong assumption that constant power produces constant acceleration. Nothing about SR here, just Newtonian mechanics.

BTW, do you have any objection with that computation with newtonian mechanics? It indicates that constant power (1 watt) applied to the toy car produces an average acceleration of 2 m/s² from t=0 to t=1s but only 0.8284 m/s² from t=1 to t=2s. Constant power, but no constant acceleration. You failed to understand this kid's math calculation. What do you expect if one take SR into consideration, something confirming your wrong assumption? You just think about it. That constant power doesn't produce constant acceleration has nothing to do with SR or mass change.

I didn't consider any mass change. Where did you see I say mass change according Newtonian mechanics and therefore constant power doesn't produce constant acceleration? I mentioned nothing about mass change.

Hahahaha, bullshit. Are you telling us that when we accelerate an electron in accelerator, for example, part of energy that we supplied sit somewhere at the tail of the electron and therefore this part of energy doesn't make the electron to move faster? Yours was just a pure dreamer concept, hahahaha.

You made it too complicated. Sit in your car, accelerate with constant power from v=0 to maximum speed. At which moment you experience the largest acceleration? It is when you are at low speed, moving from v=0. When your car already at speed 80mph, say, applying approximately constant power will not make your car accelerate as strong as when your car still moving at slow speed. Of course, air drag is strong when you move faster, but that is not the main reason for the less powerful acceleration at higher speed....of course not because mass change...hehehe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hahaha, which view of yours consistant with observation? Address your "constant power generate constant acceleration", please. That was your wrong assumption.

Did I used gamma at all? Come on, mister. The fallacy of your assumption has nothing to do with SR, it is false even based on Newtonian mechanics. I have been trying to tell you this since my last post and you keep repeating gamma, SR....OMG what do you used to block your brain from accepting new information, huh.

No logic? Hahaha. The concept is so so simple. When you apply a constant power to a car or particle or whatever, you supply a constant amount of energy to this object at certain constant time interval (say every one second). The energy becomes the object kinetic energy. Then, the object already has kinetic energy, you give it additional energy. Let say, the object's kinetic energy doubled. What is the object velocity at this moment, doubled from the first one second? Certainly not? Damn, I feel stupid explaining this so simple concept to you and you unable even get a blink of it. Really, what do you used to block your brain from incoming information. It must be a very powerful firewall, huh. I need that for my computer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I thought you were only inserting and pulling out the control rods. I never knew that you also designed reactors. And... OMG you designed fusion reactors too. Tell us the story MacM, this one really interesting. Where was it. Never heard any fusion reactor had been built anywhere in the whole world. Are you from future or you were actually involved in some top secret projects...designing fusion reactors. OMG. Or, may be you disigned it for your own use. Did you build it at your own back yard? Does it work? Please care to share us some tip, okay.

This guy is no ordinary man. I wonder what physics he used. Certainly not SR and not even newtonian physics as he knows neither of them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually, that was your own argument. You don't believe me, you keep arguing along this line and you will end up must say you accelerate relative to your own reference frame. We all will then laugh at this real idiot, hahahaha.

 

So in the simple case (no external reference frames, no relativity), it seems clear that constant horsepower does not produce constant acceleration, right?

 

http://www.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html

- Warren

 

What ever the hell this is supposed to mean. You know if they catch you smoking that shit it is jail time don't you? :m:

 

Enjoy your fantasy land. I will not waste time with you and your BS.

 

Well, I can see why they sent that to you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, that was all after your silly mistake uncovered?

BTW, I am still waiting for your story about you designing FUSION REACTOR. That must be an exciting moment for you, doing something nobody has done before. Why don't you tell us more about your wonderful accomplishment? Many of us could learn from your great experience, don't you think so?

 

Just to correct the record the only error is one you attempt to create. It does not represent the issue as presented.

You can keep waiting. It is in fact still proprietary. Although I could post correspondance from the NRC showing that it exists.

But that is not for this thread so buzz off.

BTW: Our final exam in nuke school (since we were being trained and scheduled to operate the Apollo Moon Base Reactor) included designing a PWR from materials inventory in a theoretical wharehouse on the moon. The only way to achieve that was to use conventional energy in the forms available to distill a large supply of Carlings Black Lable Beer to produce the moderator for the core.

So bug off smart ass.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3386&stc=1

 

As a matter of fact the error that you have made is at the heart of the problem. Acceleration of an object is proportional to P/mv, where P is the power. You missed that "mv", the object momentum. The higher the object momentum, the lower its acceleration (given a constant P). This is based on Newtonian mechanics.

When you are in a car accelerating with power P and measure your acceleration relative to road and an incoming quasar. Since your momentum relative to quasar is very much larger than your momentum relative to the road, that same power would produce a miniscule acceleration relative to the quasar.

I know, you will not understand this.

Ooooo, so it was just a final test to design an imaginary reactor. It doesn't have to be workable then, hehehehe. However, I am more interested with your FUSION REACTOR. Your story about that unconstructed Apollo Moon Base Reactor doesn't seem to be fusion reactor. Can you share with us your fusion reactor design, the workable one? I am not interested to a design done by school kid made for fun only. The real fusion reactor, please. Thought that was what you meant...the real reactor.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's in his basement. It consists a past strainer filled with water. The only problem he has is the 'coolant' keeps leaking out the holes... I mean leaking out the ventilation cut-outs.

 

Your unwarranted sarcasim was anticipated. However, it is meaningless and I would expect most readers would recognize training for a moon mission was not some flake night course as you attempt to suggest.

In the final analysis I know what I have done and been part of and I can only suspect that you haven't come even close to simular achievements. So go sulk in the corner.

You are correct, it was a MagnetoHydroDynamic Generator using a Homogeneous Slurry Core and Black Body Radiation Cooling. Hope those terms didn't lose you. It was a one of a kind design just for the Apollo Moon Base. Funding for the project was cut by Congress in 1965. How old were you in 1965?

Afraid not bubba, unless you choose to sign the "Confidential Disclosures" and become an investor.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nobody said anything about your night course training for moon mission. As a matter of fact, I did not even ask you about it. What I asked you was that you tell us more about your FUSION REACTOR that you designed. Until today, you tell us nothing about it. What has happened? You did design a workable FUSION REACTOR, didn't you? Tell us more about it, don't be shy.

Since you designed fusion reactor, I guess your achievement is not an ordinary one. I have known nobody who has achieved that...as we all know that international consortium has spent many decades researching thermonuclear reaction for fusion reactor and they are just about to build the first experimental fusion reactor (they have not built it -- the year now is 2004). Your claimed that you designed fusion reactors (presumably the workable ones) long long time ago should elevate you to the status of a wonder boy. So, it is appropriate for me to request you to share a piece of your experience for all of us.

Whatever it means, nobody is asking you about it. You are expected to tell us more about your fusion reactor, not liposuction nor vasectomy. Fusion reactor is what we expect from you. Why is it so difficult for you to give us a little more information about it?

Well, you seem to avoid commenting about whether constant power does generate constant acceleration or not. You thought that the object acceleration under constant power becomes smaller at high velocity because of relativity effect only. Based on your line of thought, if relativity effect is ignored, an object under constant power would accelerate at constant rate. I have shown you that such view is totally wrong. I even has given you the relevant equation and shown that accelerating relative to a moving reference frame is undeniable harder. I hear nothing from you about this issue since then.