Everyone knows that mass is invariant in special relativity. tsch!
Apparently not everyone.
Everyone knows that mass is invariant in special relativity. tsch!
You guys are really confusing Masterov!
This is not any answer to my questions.Basically, m has to be invariant because it is the norm of the energy momentum 4 vector: $$m^2 = \eta^{a b} p_a p_b = E^2 - p^2$$. That means m is invariant under Lorentz transformations and therefore cannot depend on v. What you are calling $$m = \gamma m_0$$ is a funny and not very useful measurement of the energy.
This is not any answer to my questions.
I expect answers.
___________________________
Master Theory prove un-valid of $$E = mc^2=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$.
I'm looking for an experimental confirmation of this expression a few years.
I need reliable experimental results of the direct (from calorimeter) measurement of actual energy of the relativistic particles.
Help me find them, please.
I so think already.Try to think of relativistic mass as increasing inertia, as in increasing resistance to further acceleration.
Exaggerate much?If the experiment demonstrate truth of these expressions, then these experimental data have been everywhere published. (Pornographic magazines - inclusive.)
You stubbornly refuse to look for them.You stubbornly refuse to provide experimental confirmation of these expressions.
Your logic is terrible. You have a conclusion and you're not waiting for or finding evidence, you're just leaping to the conclusion you want. It took 4 seconds for me to find that example of experiments about relativistic mass. Why couldn't you find that yourself? Why do you demand other people do things you're either too lazy or too dishonest to do?Thus you confirm that the experiment shows the falsity of these expressions.
Your misdealing is the basis to suspect and accuse you of falsehood.
Any scientist has no right to lie in science.
You are not scientists.
You're lying.
Nuu ... Yes - exaggerating.Exaggerate much?
You (stubbornly) give me not what is necessary.You stubbornly refuse to look for them.
http://physics.dickinson.edu/~dept_web/activities/papers/relativity.pdf
The results of this experiment can be interpreted otherwise: the radius of the trajectory increases due to slow down increase of Lorentz force.bending particle paths via magnetic fields.
Einstein's theory poorly approximates the experiment. But this theory approximates. This allows you to build accelerators. The quality of these accelerators match the quality of approximation.If the relativistic formulae weren't very close to right we wouldn't be able to build working accelerators based on relativity.
You give me not what is necessary.Your logic is terrible. You have a conclusion and you're not waiting for or finding evidence, you're just leaping to the conclusion you want. It took 4 seconds for me to find that example of experiments about relativistic mass. Why couldn't you find that yourself? Why do you demand other people do things you're either too lazy or too dishonest to do?
These experiments were performed many times, but the results of these experiments can not get into print, because they are contrary to Einstein's theory.Why haven't you got yourself some data about accelerators and analysed it using your own model? There's plenty of material available online about how accelerators work, such as their magnetic fields, their energies, their timings, their radiation braking issues. All of it can be found on websites or in journals or books. Yes, you may have to pay a bit of money for some stuff but that's life.
I agree with you. But your word is no excuse for fraud in science.You accuse us of lying but all you've done is presuppose your own conclusions. That is lying, that is a cardinal sin in science. To lead the evidence, rather than to be lead by the evidence, is the sort of things which gets people fired from research jobs. In medicine you can be stripped of your license if you did such a thing in a clinical trial. You are the one being dishonest here. You have access to Google, you simply haven't used it and to compound your dishonest you're just making up things.
An accountant has the right to call themselves an accountant? Is it presumptuous?The person with the least right to refer to themselves as a scientist here appears to be you.
So you honestly think pornographic magazines would publish the results?Nuu ... Yes - exaggerating.
I'm right in fact.
Sure. Any experiment can be interpreted differently. The question is whether a single model can provide accurate interpretations for all relevant experiments. That's the point of unifying models, so you end up with less explaining more.The results of this experiment can be interpreted otherwise: the radius of the trajectory increases due to slow down increase of Lorentz force.
Experiments never prove models. However, it does demonstrate that such a conclusion about the behaviour of mass at relativistic speeds is a justifiable one.This experiment does not prove fact of increase of relativist mass.
Using accelerators we have measured the accuracy of quantum electrodynamics, which includes both quantum mechanics and special relativity, to parts per trillion. It is the most accurate and precisely tested model in human history.Einstein's theory poorly approximates the experiment. But this theory approximates. This allows you to build accelerators. The quality of these accelerators match the quality of approximation.
What is necessary is you getting 4~10 years of physics education.You give me not what is necessary.
Prove your assertion they are contrary to special relativity. I've worked with people who do analysis of experimental data from accelerators, the data does not contradict relativity.I need reliable experimental results of the direct (from calorimeter) measurement of actual energy of the relativistic particles.These experiments were performed many times, but the results of these experiments can not get into print, because they are contrary to Einstein's theory.
You suggest I find it? Sorry Chuckles but you're the one making assertions about all this. I don't have to do anything. I paid attention in school, I learnt some physics. If you're either too lazy or too incompetent to find the information I'm not going to help you. Get a journal subscription. Or better yet, get a physics degree, a particle physics PhD and then a research position at an accelerator facility doing collider physics and then you can see the data for yourself!I suggest you find reliable experimental results of the direct (from calorimeter) measurement of actual energy of the relativistic particles. (I failed to do so.)
There isn't the conspiracy of silence you're implying. Your evidence-less claims about fraud are themselves dishonest. You have an axe to grind and you're fabricating justifications. You suck at physics, I get it. Unfortunately you need to learn to accept the reason you're getting nowhere is because you suck at physics and you lie, not because there's some elaborate conspiracy against you.I agree with you. But your word is no excuse for fraud in science.
Because I'm paid $500,000 a year to suppress the truth, along with the tens, even hundreds of thousands of particle physics PhDs like me. Opps! I shouldn't have said that, if only I could edit this post!The experiment:
$$p=mv=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}v$$
$$E = mc^2=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$
is false and you know it. If you are an honest man, why do not you talk about it.
By what criteria would you consider yourself to be a scientist?An accountant has the right to call themselves an accountant? Is it presumptuous?
If someone accuses an honest accountant of stealing does that make the accountant a thief?If an accountant steals money, it is still considered to be an accountant? Maybe it properly be called her a thief?
What do you call someone who rants about conspiracies against him for which he has no evidence?Is a scientist an honest man, if money is spent on the experiment and to do downright lie for public?
Because I'm paid $500,000 a year to suppress the truth, along with the tens, even hundreds of thousands of particle physics PhDs like me. Opps! I shouldn't have said that, if only I could edit this post!
Sure. Any experiment can be interpreted differently. The question is whether a single model can provide accurate interpretations for all relevant experiments. That's the point of unifying models, so you end up with less explaining more.The results of this experiment can be interpreted otherwise: the radius of the trajectory increases due to slow down increase of Lorentz force.
The validity of expressions:Experiments never prove models. However, it does demonstrate that such a conclusion about the behaviour of mass at relativistic speeds is a justifiable one.This experiment does not prove fact of increase of relativist mass.
Do you think there's a massive conspiracy to suppress information or something? It would have to include every single particle physicist in the world. For example, I didn't do experimental particle physics but I have worked along side people who have, I've seen their data, their computer programs, their calculations, their publications. As such if you think they are involved in a conspiracy then you must think I am too.
There isn't the conspiracy of silence you're implying. Your evidence-less claims about fraud are themselves dishonest. You have an axe to grind and you're fabricating justifications. You suck at physics, I get it. Unfortunately you need to learn to accept the reason you're getting nowhere is because you suck at physics and you lie, not because there's some elaborate conspiracy against you.
If you look closely at the derivation of Master Theory, you will notice that the Master Theory comes from the same initial postulates. Master Theory gives absoluteness to time, but Einstein's gives absoluteness to cross-scale.Using accelerators we have measured the accuracy of quantum electrodynamics, which includes both quantum mechanics and special relativity, to parts per trillion. It is the most accurate and precisely tested model in human history.Einstein's theory poorly approximates the experiment. But this theory approximates. This allows you to build accelerators. The quality of these accelerators match the quality of approximation.
As such I'd say that's a pretty good approximation.
I'm not interested in knowledge that is built on lies and I am quite familiar with this knowledge, to see lie of them.What is necessary is you getting 4~10 years of physics education.You give me not what is necessary.
If the data (which I'm looking for) have been published (someplace), then I would have found them. I would do not invited you do search for them.You suggest I find it? Sorry Chuckles but you're the one making assertions about all this. I don't have to do anything. I paid attention in school, I learnt some physics. If you're either too lazy or too incompetent to find the information I'm not going to help you. Get a journal subscription. Or better yet, get a physics degree, a particle physics PhD and then a research position at an accelerator facility doing collider physics and then you can see the data for yourself!I suggest you find reliable experimental results of the direct (from calorimeter) measurement of actual energy of the relativistic particles. (I failed to do so.)
Accusations of incompetence in his address, I hear not the first time of some years. But no one (of accusers) has yet proved these (unsupported by evidence) allegations. Despite the fact that it's easy to do. It's enough to publish experiments that directly (of calorimeter) measured the energy and momentum of the relativistic particles.There isn't a conspiracy of silence. There isn't suppression of evidence. You're just too incompetent to find it yourself. Rather than being honest and saying "I couldn't find it therefore I don't know what the evidence says" you're saying "I couldn't find it therefore it's exactly what I claim it is and it's being suppressed". Here is an index of pretty much every experimental particle physics paper from the last 17 years. There's tons of data there. If you're unable to understand it that doesn't mean it's wrong or a lie, it's means you're insufficiently educated.
1. I studied to be a scientist.By what criteria would you consider yourself to be a scientist?An accountant has the right to call themselves an accountant? Is it presumptuous?
An honest man does not lie. If a man lies, he can not be an honest man. It's obvious.If someone accuses an honest accountant of stealing does that make the accountant a thief?If an accountant steals money, it is still considered to be an accountant? Maybe it properly be called her a thief?
1. I would call that person crazy.What do you call someone who rants about conspiracies against him for which he has no evidence?Is a scientist an honest man, if money is spent on the experiment and to do downright lie for public?
It's simply prove. It's enough to publish experiments that directly (of calorimeter) measured the energy of the relativistic particles.I don't mean my day job pays that (that's easily more than a decade's worth of salary to me!), my involvement in a massive global conspiracy to suppress the truth of Einstein being incorrect pays it. After all, when you're part of a conspiracy spanning countries, continents, governments, religions and ideologies it's easy to lay your hands on massive of money. Masterov's fantasy world pays pretty well!
Or rather the information is in journals and available to researchers. Since you won't pay for journals and you're too incompetent to be a physicist you don't have access to the data.TThe experiments were conducted such, but the results of these experiments is not public print. The only justification for it: are a contradiction of these experiments to Einstein's theory.
Provide evidence, otherwise you sound like a paranoid nut.Russian Academy of Sciences three times makes a decision that prohibits the publication of scientific papers, if they contradict Einstein's theory.
You can 'suspect' all you like, but you have no evidence. In fact recently there's been a lot of talk about how neutrinos might have been observed contradicting Einstein. It wasn't suppressed, it became one of the most talked about things in physics for years!I suspect that such bans exist not only in Russia.
Paranoid delusions without evidence. In fact it contradicts evidence. Already the LHC has produced data which has been of use to physics. If the LHC demonstrated relativity is wrong then it would be a bigger contribution to physics than anything it was deliberately built for.Europe spent a lot of money for the construction of LHC. (Other countries are spending money to build a large accelerators, too.) If I will be right, this would mean that the LHC (and others) was vain built. This may be the cause of big scandal. Exist are people who are not interested in such scandal. These people have an interest to hide the truth.
I just did. Anyone involved in such a conspiracy would have more to gain by revealing it. Your claims imply there's tens, even hundreds, of thousands of people involved. No one has 'defected', despite there being no reason not to and plenty of reasons to do so. Your claims fail in the face of basic human nature.Destroy my suspicions. It's done simply.
Which would involve petabytes of data. The ATLAS detector produces 100GB of data A SECOND.It's enough to publish experiments that directly (of calorimeter) measured the energy and momentum of the relativistic particles.
In other words you take the Newtonian approximation of relativity.In cases where time dilation in the coordinate frame of a relativistic particle does not apparent, the equations of Master Theory and Einstein's theory of differences have not. Both theories will provide a good approximation in these cases.
Einstein's expressions:
$$p=mv=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}v$$
$$E = mc^2=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2$$
for Master Theory has classical form:
$$p=m_oV$$
$$E = \frac{m_oV^2}{2}+Const$$
You aren't interested in knowledge full stop.I'm not interested in knowledge that is built on lies and I am quite familiar with this knowledge, to see lie of them.
Because you don't know any physics?Today I understand why I am had big difficulty ten years ago.
The hep-ex section of ArXiv illustrates just how much experimental data there is. The raw data isn't given, as it is simply too large to publish in print, but its available to researchers in universities. I know because I've worked along side a number of them.I wanted to you see for yourself that the experimental results of direct measurements of energy and momentum of relativistic particles in the press there be absent.
You haven't proven any of your accusations about suppression, conspiracies, lies, frauds. You're just hurling out fabrications you have no evidence for.But no one (of accusers) has yet proved these (unsupported by evidence) allegations.
You clearly don't know the amount of data involved. As I said, we're talking thousands of petabytes of raw data. The raw data is not literally printed in journals, it's kept on servers and is available to those who are doing actual research into this stuff. If you could get yourself a particle physics job then you'd be able to get access to it.Despite the fact that it's easy to do. It's enough to publish experiments that directly (of calorimeter) measured the energy and momentum of the relativistic particles.
Did you actually get to become a scientist? And what do you mean 'studied'? Do you mean you have a science related degree? Masters? PhD?1. I studied to be a scientist.
What job?2. I've been doing this job since 1986.
And yet you have no interest in being honest and listening to evidence, instead you make suppositions and lead the evidence.3. I want to know the truth.
Then you are not an honest man.4. I do not lie.An honest man does not lie. If a man lies, he can not be an honest man. It's obvious.
Your proof is you don't have access to it? That isn't proof of concealment, it's proof you have not advanced far enough in physics research to be allowed access to raw experimental data. If you had gotten a physics degree, PhD and then a research position you'd be allowed access to it. Presently you lack the knowledge and ability to understand the data.You are participating in concealment and forgery. You are not an honest man. I have proof of these accusations: you suppress publish experimental results of the direct (from calorimeter) measurement of actual energy of the relativistic particles.
I have a physics PhD and a research job. I'm more of a scientist than you.You are not a scientist. You suck at physics only.
Then you admit you're crazy.1. I would call that person crazy.
I answered a questions only.This is trending more toward a Conspiracy thread instead of a Silly Unsubstantiated Theory thread.
I answered a questions only.
And I expect that will be published data of experiments that directly measured (of calorimeter) the energy of a relativistic particles.
And I expect that will be published data of experiments that directly measured (of calorimeter) the energy of a relativistic particles.