Brownosing rpenner is not science, you obviously have no clue what my debate with him is all about. The best you can do is to keep licking his boots, as if this has any merit. It doesn't , it only shows how lame you are. I challenged you (in post 62) to do a simple calculation, you could not do it and you will never be able to do it and nothing that you post will ever change that.
Obviously wrong. See post #8. The conclusion can be used to test the applicability of Newtonian and Relativistic physics. Likewise: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-physics/elastic-collisions-bodies-equal-mass http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/p...cle-tracks-including-collision-helium-nucleus http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/linear-momentum-find-perfect-90/ https://teachers.web.cern.ch/teache...s/Momentum Conservation/elastic collision.pdf
Meh, I am talking about experimental physicists not about educators. I very much doubt it since the angle cannot be measured reliably, see below. I cringe when I see "papers" published in IOP (none of them is peer reviewed, anyone can write anything). You realize that the collision angle is a function of the viewing angle in the bubble chamber so no actual measurement can be done because of the perspective distortion, right? "The photograph is a lucky choice as the fork occurred directly facing the camera." ahem.... This is why none of the papers that you cited can be considered a serious experiment. But, ok, if it makes you happy, this freshman exercise is a great "discovery". While you were trying to figure out a clever answer to my objections I figured out a way of determining the individual angles. You can do it too, but you will need to think out of your box, it isn't very complicated. Of course, there is no way around the more serious objection, the fact that the plane containing the trajectories is indeterminate. There is no way around this.
Well, you could measure all planes common to the collision point as in the above-mentioned CMS detector or you could use, as was used in WWII intelligence that detected the V-1 and V-2 threats, precision stereo-photography or you could arrange for a great number of collisions to happen and compare measured angle versus a model of random orientation to the photographic plane, just to name three ways out of this conundrum.
There is an infinity of such planes. Besides, you are always measuring the perspective view, so the angle is always distorted. This may work for educators but doesn't work for experimentalists. Short of using a hemisphere of detectors packed next to each other , no other method can be trusted. Ugly. Have you given some thought figuring out the individual angles?
Thank you, all treatment is non-relativistic, there are no relativistic equations, the good professor is confused. I agree, though, the problem is well known and it is treated in many textbooks.
Firstly my apologies xyz as I am not up to understanding whatever the problem at hand is. But I was just wondering.....with six of our best here deriding what you claim, and now this "confused Professor", I must say that you are either "Nobel" material, having to straighten out 5 trolls and a confused Professor, or you are somewhat deluded and suffer from an inflated ego. Which do you believe is more likely? If I sound rather cynical, you must understand that in my short time here, around 2 years, we have had four "would be's, if they could be's" all claiming to have the long sort after TOE, and the knowledge to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology. So you should understand how based on logic, sensibility, and accepted mainstream science, you are appearing to come across as less then reliable, trustworthy, or having any knowledge and wisdom to convince anyone of your position.
Who are the "six of our best"? -brucep, arfa brane and OnlyMe are morons incapable of posting anything of the subject, toadies to rpenner -rpenner is good , he seems (finally) to have understood what the issues are, after a rough start he seems to have learned some respect, he's the only technical contributor -tasja is respectful, he produce a citation from a professor that cannot tell that the treatment he is citing is Newtonian, rather than relativistic, so it has nothing to do with what is being discussed -origin "contributed" a dig and then he had the common sense to bow out ..that you are yet another moron that has no clue about the subject being discussed <shrug> We are not discussing any TOE, we are discussing an elementary exercise, if you do not know the difference, stay out. see above. If you don't know what the subject is, keep your moth shut, ok?
No, not at all. When I see fit, I will comment...OK? Good. You seem rather agro, is this because the whole world appears to have derided what you claim? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Take a disprin and have a good lay down...You may feel better and avoid a coronary. ps: Oh, and I'll stand by the reputation of all those you have put down, so predictably and so like our average ego inflated would be's if they could be's. It's also good you don't also claim a TOE as our other alternative nuts have, so you do receive a point in that regard, and at this stage of proceedings.
Join the other clowns. The math can be found in post 35. The challenge to clowns like you is in post 62. You can try to solve the issue or keep your mouth shut and let me and rpenner proceed.
Professor, has just made a passing reference to equations # 74-76 with reference to relative frames only.... XYX is harsh on prof, but he is right as there are no relativistic equations as per context...
The professor has invalidated what xyz is claiming, as have everyone else. Like the past delusional posters that claim to have a TOE, he also has nothing, and that fact is overwhelmingly supported by his aggressive arrogant attitude, which thankfully we don't have to put up with anymore.
Sorry, Paddoboy... Professor has not invalidated anybody, he has just given a link, and you have not seen those equations 74-76, otherwise you would have agreed to XYX observation that there are no relativistic equations therein. Moreover, you have not understood (as per your own admission) the issue in dispute, so how can you claim that others have invalidated ? Even OnlyMe was frank enough to admit that he did not touch maths for last 40 years, he could not have invalidated his equations, without understanding what they are.
It's a shame in actual fact that you do not admit to your own short comings as OnlyMe and I have done. Debates with you would then be that much more honest. The professor has given a link that supports what basically rpenner has said.
Paddoboy, I am not making a statement on who is right or who is not ?? Rpenner is good and I know and I have the ability to understand that. The problem with you is, that you decide or give your views without even knowing the matter in hand.....such arguments do not form the part of live argument, but in the forums they cannot be avoided...because anyone can jut in any time and can give his half cooked prejudiced opinion, like you do... And its a bitter fact Paddoboy, You, Brucep, OnlyMe have not offered any maths or Physics to this thread, possibly you guys fall short and XYX has exposed that. PS : I am not supporting the rude language used by XYX, but you guys have also not been very civil to him..... In fact Rpenner is good enough to handle such situations, three of you (You, Brucep and OnlyMe) kind of gave an impression of some sort of dishonest groupism.
I doubt that. I am able to recognise trolls, those publishing under another handle after being banned, those with delusions of grandeur that think they are making a difference to science by posting rubbish on a science forum. If they, xyz, or you, had anything at all invalidating any present accepted science, you would not be here. The fact that you are speaks volumes about the sincerity and validity of what you claim. And that's why he was banned. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This is a science forum, first and foremost. Any alternative hypothesis pusher will be questioned and will need to run the gauntlet with relation to his claims. Like I said, if any of these would be's if they could be's had anything of substance [including yourself] you would be publishing with reputable publishers and undergo proper peer review. Let me remind you. Thousands of scientific papers are published every week. Most of those are published by less then reputable publishers. Most make great toilet paper.
