Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

[Erock]

Yes! That's the same answer I got from the scientist. The problem is that this will give a relative velocity between the photons of 1c. This doesn't match reality since if we measure the actual distance traveled and the time it takes, as according to the observer's clock and measuring of lengths, then we will get a result of 2c.

You are over complicating it by using the observers reality to determine the photons relative velocity to each other.

The photon relative to the other photon is moving at 1c. The observer sees 2 c. The net result at any given time is 2c but from the observer. Always from the photon it is 1c. Time dilation comes into play.

This explains it quite well:

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/sr2.htm

 

[twinstead]

Oh, I forgot that part. I don't believe conventional explosives can hold the fission material in a critical mass. The alleged fission explosion is much more powerful than the ability of conventional explosives to keep the fission material together. They claimed to have managed to achieve that in the Manhattan project just when the war was about to end. Someone even said, I don't remember who, that the Hiroshima type bomb hadn't even been tested before it was used.

Ah, "someone even said, I don't remember who" another one of those phrases that leave rational people a little dubious.

The techniques used to induce fission and fusion in weapons is incredibly well documented, and used by every nation that has nuclear capabilities.

Can you tell us exactly why you believe it actually doesn't work?

 

[nomuse]

Actually, I think I understand now. He doesn't believe in inertia. (The same force responsible for the progressive collapse of the twin towers, which he also does not believe in).

 

[twinstead]

Actually, I think I understand now. He doesn't believe in inertia. (The same force responsible for the progressive collapse of the twin towers, which he also does not believe in).

I've always suspected that inertia is a hoax!

 

[Anders Lindman]

Oh, and incidentally, a similar scenario takes place in the heart of a star; gravitational pressure forces hydrogen, helium...etc. atoms together until the mutual repulsion is overcome, producing a new heavier material and a lot of energy; enough to push the materials away as strongly as before. The star remains balanced on the twin forces of gravitational collapse and the ongoing small amounts of fusion forcing the materials of the star apart again.

(Until you reach iron, and the game begins to fall apart).

But isn't the gravitational compression much larger in that case than what can be achieved with conventional explosives pushing the fission material together?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

But I'm not done yet. I thought you would ask me about the atom bomb hoax, how I would explain that to a 6-year-old child.

I would ask the child: "A cloud next to an atom bomb, would it survive the explosion?"

And the child replies: "No way!"

Then I show the child this video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtSt5XZ7fq4

The child says: "Unreal!"

To which I reply: "Bingo. You are correct and the film is fake."

And then the child asks: "Do you have any film showing a real atom bomb?"

I tell the child: "That was what they call a real atom bomb."

And I would then tell the child that the bomb went off underwater and so that most of the blast was directed outwards into the water with a small portion of the blast going straight up. Just like you see in a conventional depth charge.



As someone who worked and lived closely with these types of weapons (I even slept about 10' away from enough firepower to make us the 4th most powerful nuclear force all on our own) I can say with no doubt at all that you are clearly delusional and need to up your meds ASAP.

 

[nomuse]

But isn't the gravitational compression much larger in that case than what can be achieved with conventional explosives pushing the fission material together?

Yes, which is why fusion initiation experiments are conducted these days with arrays of carefully focused lasers. Fusion is an entirely different process, in any case. The similarity is only in the momentary existence of conducive conditions.

Anyhow, essential point is that the conditions under which massive energy release is possible last for an extremely short time; only the inertia of the materials permits any significant fission to take place at all.

And only a fraction of the mass of the bomb -- or even the potential fission yeild (aka the mass difference between parent and daughter isotope) is actually converted to energy.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You are over complicating it by using the observers reality to determine the photons relative velocity to each other.

The photon relative to the other photon is moving at 1c. The observer sees 2 c. The net result at any given time is 2c but from the observer. Always from the photon it is 1c. Time dilation comes into play.

This explains it quite well:

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/sr2.htm

Not according to the scientist I asked.

 

[nomuse]

From the other source you posted:

"If an observer A measures two objects B and C to be travelling at velocities u = (ux, uy, uz) and v = (vx, vy, vz) respectively, one may ask the question of what the relative speed between B and C are, or in other words at what speed w B would measure C to be travelling at, or vice versa. In galileian relativity the relative speed would be given by

w2 = (u-v).(u-v) = (ux - vx)2 + (uy - vy)2 + (uz - vz)2.

However, in special relativity the relative speed is instead given by the formula

         (u-v).(u-v) - (u × v)2/c2
 w2 =    -------------------------
             (1 - (u.v)/c2)2

When uy = uz = vy = vz = 0, the formula reduces to the more familiar

       |ux - vx|
w =  -------------
      1 - ux vx/c2

" -- http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

With this equation the velocity becomes: 2c / (1 + c^2/c^2) = c. So this time you are wrong, according to your own previous source. If an observer A measures two photons B and C to be travelling in opposite directions, then according to Einstein's general relativity the relative velocity between them is c, not 2c (which is the true value in reality but not according to SR).

One of these things is not like the other.

 

[Anders Lindman]

One of these things is not like the other.

That was a wrong quote I made.

 

[dasmiller]

But only a tiny fraction of the fission material would explode since as soon as the fission material is broken apart it no longer has critical mass. The conventional explosives is used to press the fission material together long enough for the chain reaction to create a nuclear explosion. I doubt that such scenario really is possible.

And you have supporting calculations or experiments showing that the fission reaction would happen slowly enough to blow the pieces apart before the reaction really took off? Or is this based purely on your incredulity?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, which is why fusion initiation experiments are conducted these days with arrays of carefully focused lasers. Fusion is an entirely different process, in any case. The similarity is only in the momentary existence of conducive conditions.

Anyhow, essential point is that the conditions under which massive energy release is possible last for an extremely short time; only the inertia of the materials permits any significant fission to take place at all.

And only a fraction of the mass of the bomb -- or even the potential fission yeild (aka the mass difference between parent and daughter isotope) is actually converted to energy.

I couldn't find any information about inertia in relation to fission bombs on the Web. Maybe you meant inertia relation to fusion? In fission bombs the material is pressed together using conventional explosives to form a supercritical mass. Something they happened to achieve after many failures in the Manhattan project just in time when the war was about to end. Seems a little bit too convenient to me.

 

[Anders Lindman]

And you have supporting calculations or experiments showing that the fission reaction would happen slowly enough to blow the pieces apart before the reaction really took off? Or is this based purely on your incredulity?

The faster the chain reaction, the faster the fission material is blown apart into subcritical mass.

 

[Travis]

No, I'm pretty sure Trinity was the first bomb they tested.

 

[Anders Lindman]

This was a funny part:

"Let's say we produce a pulse of light into space by quickly flashing a torch (flashlight) on and off. We then follow the beam of light in a very fast rocket moving at 100,000 km per second. How fast is the light beam moving away from us? Common sense tells us that it is moving away from us 300,000 km minus 100,000 km per second. In other words, the light beam is 200,000 km per second faster than us. Wrong! " [my emphasis] -- http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/sr2.htm

So common sense becomes wrong. Oh, what a con artist Einstein was. He could even make people abandon their common sense.

 

[Erock]

Not according to the scientist I asked.

Are you just being deliberately obtuse?

You said....

That's not the reply I got from the scientist. I claimed that the relative velocity between the two photons is 2c, just as you say here, but he said it is 1c according to Einstein's special relativity.

As I said, it is 1c. From the observer it is 2c because there is no time dilation from a static point. It is purely relative. Nothing is moving double light speed.

 

[Border Reiver]

To maintain their power. They are very few compared to the billions of people in the public society. They would very quickly lose their power to other power groups in society without their upper hand.

If you have the power to begin wars and to supress true science with phony science despite millions of scientists carrying out research, some disgruntled masses will likely be easy to manipulate.

Who would these mysterious people be?

 

[nomuse]

He is right about Little Boy not being tested, though. They figured nothing significant could go wrong. Fat Man, like Trinity, was the much trickier implosion type -- which also allowed them to use a more-available material.

As far as "failures" go, the Demon Core demonstrated a thorough willingness to go supercritical at any opportunity. I bet it was a relief to finally scatter the thing into plutonium dust across the desert at Los Alamos.

 

[dasmiller]

And you have supporting calculations or experiments showing that the fission reaction would happen slowly enough to blow the pieces apart before the reaction really took off? Or is this based purely on your incredulity?

The faster the chain reaction, the faster the fission material is blown apart into subcritical mass.

Was that intended as a supporting calculation or as an experiment?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Are you just being deliberately obtuse?

You said....



As I said, it is 1c. From the observer it is 2c because there is no time dilation from a static point. It is purely relative. Nothing is moving double light speed.

All velocities are relative according to SR! What I said to the scientist was that the velocity between the photons as the observer sees it is 2c, and he said, no according to SR the velocity between them is 1c as the observer sees it. He said that when adding velocities of several objects, such as in Quantum ElectroDynamics, they have to be added relativistically, not just adding them like c + c = 2c.