Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Max speed, then? and still have a distinct lack of proof.You're the one that made a claim. You said all forms of 'radiation' travel at C; find a source that says beta rays travel at C. I'm having trouble finding one that states a specific speed (at least connected with an actual experiment) because the standard is to give particle energy, but of course that requires the equations you've arbitrarily decided are incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 You're the one that made a claim. You said all forms of 'radiation' travel at C; find a source that says beta rays travel at C. I'm having trouble finding one that states a specific speed (at least connected with an actual experiment) because the standard is to give particle energy, but of course that requires the equations you've arbitrarily decided are incorrect.I never said E=mc^2 was wrong, just that infinite energy was required to travel at light-speed. It's also something called "potential" energy.Now, I never said they all travel at C, just that Beta does. Of course Gamma does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I never said E=mc^2 was wrong... That won't get you velocity of a particle given it's energy. What will is the relativistic equation for Ke I gave earlier.Now, I never said they all travel at C, just that Beta does.Yes, now provide proof for this assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I never said E=mc^2 was wrong, just that infinite energy was required to travel at light-speed. It's also something called "potential" energy.Now, I never said they all travel at C, just that Beta does. Of course Gamma does.So can you answer how much energy is needed to an electron reach light speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 As an undergrad, I performed an experiment in which we fired beta particles (from a decaying radioactive element) into a magnetic field. By adjusting the field strength to get the electrons to hit the detector, we could determine the speed of the electrons. We did this for multiple beta sources that each ejected their electrons at different speeds.None of them were moving at the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 As an undergrad, I performed an experiment in which we fired beta particles (from a decaying radioactive element) into a magnetic field. By adjusting the field strength to get the electrons to hit the detector, we could determine the speed of the electrons. We did this for multiple beta sources that each ejected their electrons at different speeds.None of them were moving at the speed of light.Got the big PROOF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 You know, i see what is referred to a distinct lack of people who actually understand what they are talking about. I'm referring to how Einstein was wrong, and have given many reasons, utilizing logic, that have disproved him. Since not one here has brought proof as of yet, I assume you are all defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Got the big PROOF?You made the claim, that beta rays travel at C; your claim is the one that requires proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 You know, i see what is referred to a distinct lack of people who actually understand what they are talking about. I'm referring to how Einstein was wrong, and have given many reasons, utilizing logic, that have disproved him. Since not one here has brought proof as of yet, I assume you are all defeated.You're the one making assertions here, and failed to provide any proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Denying centuries-old theories, specially one of the most tested and respected in history, is certainly a extraordinary claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Ladies and gentleman, this discussions has wandered very far from laser countermeasures, and tempers are becoming heated. Please take a moment to enjoy other threads on the forum, and come back here when you can discuss the subject of laser countermeasures without insulting each others' intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 You're the one making assertions here, and failed to provide any proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Denying centuries-old theories, specially one of the most tested and respected in history, is certainly a extraordinary claim.It's funny you know, cause that is EXACTLY WHAT EINSTEIN DID! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 You made the claim, that beta rays travel at C; your claim is the one that requires proof.Remember that other thread? No?Well, I never saw a source of that 15 lb bomb...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Now, laser countermeasures would be to "get outta doge" (yes, doge, it's a joke) when the distance is extreme. However, good luck doing that. A sufficiently sized cloud could work......Now, please, it doesn't matter, because no one's right about anything. We're all wrong here..... especially since all the "proof" came from Earth.A Laser is light, but extremely focused. Not to mention other differences. It would burn a hole in the vessel/installation. Perhaps ablative armor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Remember that other thread? No?Well, I never saw a source of that 15 lb bomb......YawnPlutonium Fuel: approx. 13.6 lbs; approx. size of a softballThat took about ten seconds. It shouldn't take you any longer to find a source for your 'beta rays move at C' claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 YawnThat took about ten seconds. It shouldn't take you any longer to find a source for your 'beta rays move at C' claim.How long did it take Einstein to "prove" his views? You believe him, so, what's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 You believe him, so, what's the difference.Einstein wasn't provably wrong. He had evidence as well, of course (e.g. the discrepancies in the procession of mercury), but you can't really get to the latter without going through the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Hey, people, if you want to continue to discuss the relativity issues, you should probably open another thread, before a moderator closes this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Einstein wasn't provably wrong. He had evidence as well, of course (e.g. the discrepancies in the procession of mercury), but you can't really get to the latter without going through the former.Yet every thing that was commonly accepted, IE Newton's Gravity stuff, were basically what he was defying. "Procession of mercury" the planet, god, or element? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 "Procession of mercury" the planet, god, or element?That's 'precession', sorry, autocorrect got it. The planet, of course, precession is an orbital effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphox Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I've read through seven pages of this thread, and if it weren't for the title, I'd have no idea what was going on in here. It's obvious nobody intends to heed a moderator's previous request to bring this back to its original subject, so it will be closed.I understand how and why the subject changed, but it's derailed nonetheless. In the future, start a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts