Tuesday, April 03, 2007

They're Back - 4 Grandma Luce Strikes Back!

So Lucy Haye has decided to reply to my previous comments, here it is in its brilliant unedited glory. Watch out for razor sharp observations and stunning scientific insight, or not.

Dear Mark:

You confirm that you are really very ignorant, when you talk about the balls. From where the energy come from?

In AD it expend more energy when the velocity is bigger (20 m/sec) but with the same GIVEN energy the ball will travel at 14.14 m/sec. Tell NASA how to do your brilliant idea given by Newton and Einstein!!! to get energy from nothing.
(Of course I know that you don't understand the problem. Is needed to be a no fanatic ignorant to understand it. You don’t understood the problem in the referenced PAGE)

You NEVER will understand AD because you are an ignorant believer of Einstein mistakes and living in the ancient caves.

As always thanks for your commercial. The smart people will see the difference, THANKS

Lucy Haye.
Lucy is confused, but lets see if the rest of us can learn something today.

Lets set the scene, we have a man on a train, the train travels at 10m/s in some direction, the man then throws a ball in the direction of motion of the train, the ball travels at 10m/s relative to the man. The question is at what speed does a stationary observer by the tracks see the ball move at?

The answer is simple, the ball appears to the stationary observer to be moving at 20m/s, simply the sum of the two velocities, now, however much Lucy bleats and whines this is a simple fact of nature, observed whenever objects move in relative motion at speeds a lot less than light speed, the fact that AD says this is not the case simply proves that AD is a crock.

Now why is Lucy whining about energy? You see AD has the strange idea that when an object moves it becomes less massive, this is in direct contradiction to both the predictions of Special Relativity and all experimental observations. ADherents claim that this loss in mass is used to push the object along. So when she asks "From where the energy come from?", she is confused about where the energy moving the ball comes from. Of course those of us in the sanity based world are not confused, the ball received kinetic energy from the train, and then even more from the man throwing it, of course the amount of kinetic energy depends on who is measuring it, the man on the train measures the ball having less kinetic energy than the man by the track. This is simply to say that the kinetic energy is not an invariant quantity, how much KE you measure an object to have depends on the relative motion between yourself and the object, it is surely easy to accept that this is the case, think of it this way, what does more damage a crash where one car is stationary and the other hits it at 30mph, or one where both cars drive at each other at 30mph?

This simple and obvious fact about the Universe, is a big problem for ADherents, they have so confused themselves about the nature of frames of reference that they have concocted a theory where kinetic energy has become so confused that it cannot be used in the real world. Hence the problem that they are unable to account for even the simplest relative motion experiments.

So what is the standard response to any criticism that points out ADs manifest failings? Either stony silence or a barrage of Ad-Hominems and claims of scientific bias. I really don't care personally whether Einsteins Relativity is correct, it doesn't really impact much on the work I do, I thoroughly believe that at some point a new theory will supplant it, its just that AD clearly isn't that theory. Any theory that wishes to replace relativity, must first be able to explain all the observations that relativity so successfully has, AD can't do that, it can't even reproduce the observations of the low energy regime that Galileo and Newton managed.

I'll repeat my challenge, to Dave, Ricardo or Lucy, if AD is a scientific theory, then publish something in a real peer reviewed journal, if you would like a list of reputable ones feel free to email me and I'll try to let you know which would be most appropriate. Now if you don't mind I'm off to do some real science.

Note: To those not familiar with the topic, AD has been published in a journal once, it was a paper, co-written with the creator of AD Ricardo Carezani, which described the results of an experiment carried out at the Stanford Linear Accelerator which completely disproved the theory, finding that all the results were perfectly in line with the predictions of Special Relativity. You can find the paper here if you like.